The general public does.
Exact at what point did I explicitly state that I was shoving my preferred policy down your throat?
No, what I said was that I am suing for a violation of my rights.
My gay and lesbian brethren are suing for their right to marry because homophobes like you will not voluntarily respect that marriage is a fundamental right. THAT is what my LGBT brethren are doing.
I really wish the opposition had the intelligence to distinguish between "Marriage Law" and "Marriage.""Why gay marriage bans are unconstitutional..." - middleagedgamer
Did it ever occur to you that if there is no gay marriage then there isn't such a thing as a "gay marriage ban"? In other words, if it doesn't exists--you can't ban it. And in most of the states it has never existed.
That was only three sentences.
"Why gay marriage bans are unconstitutional..." - middleagedgamer
Did it ever occur to you that if there is no gay marriage then there isn't such a thing as a "gay marriage ban"? In other words, if it doesn't exists--you can't ban it. And in most of the states it has never existed.
That was only three sentences.
"Why gay marriage bans are unconstitutional..." - middleagedgamer
Did it ever occur to you that if there is no gay marriage then there isn't such a thing as a "gay marriage ban"? In other words, if it doesn't exists--you can't ban it. And in most of the states it has never existed.
That was only three sentences.
No, I can produce concrete examples of times when regular people whave claimed that homosexuals are shoving their beliefs down heterosexuals throats.given your antipathy towards them, i think i will take that notion and discard it.
that would be the point at which you declared your willingness to overthrow popular soveriegnty.
Oh, is THAT where this whole miscommunication lies?you. do. not. have. a. right. to. have. the. state. issue. you. a. marriage. liscence.
If that's the case, I don't suppose you could provide some citation that marriage is NOT a funamental right.
YOUR reasoning is religion-driven at best and closed-minded at worst!:roll: yeah okay. you know nothing about me but i'm a homophobe because i think your reasoning is emotion-driven at best and foolish at worst.
It's the same thing.It would have been shorter had you simply said, "States don't ban gay marriage, they simply define marriage as between one man and one woman."
I hope bigots burn in hell.eace
No, I can produce concrete examples of times when regular people whave claimed that homosexuals are shoving their beliefs down heterosexuals throats.
that would be the point at which you declared your willingness to overthrow popular soveriegnty.
Oh, is THAT where this whole miscommunication lies?
If that's the case, I don't suppose you could provide some citation that marriage is NOT a funamental right.
YOUR reasoning is religion-driven at best and closed-minded at worst!
A gay marriage ban IS a marriage definition exclusive to opposite-sex couples.
Let me make this perfectly clear: When the basis of said "definition" serves no purpose but to discriminate against a group they perceive to be morally wrong, without any secular reasoning behind it, then the population's permission doesn't mean sh*t.:shrug: then i would point out that they are putting it awkwardly; but that the claim certainly has a center of truth. we live in a representative society - to a good extent the state is 'us'. and you are definitely attempting to force the state to alter it's definition of marriage to the one that you prefer without getting that populations' permission.
And, at exactly which point did I demonstrate a willingness to overthrow popular sovereignty, as opposed to, the tyranny of the majority?still waiting on this one to be answered.
Natural rights are those that you're born with.that you don't have a right to have the state issue you a marriage certificate?
rights are negative, not positive.
Prove it.but you do not have the right to insist that everyone else alter their definition of marriage simply to suit your preferences.
What else could it POSSIBLY be based on?not really. but then, you never bothered to find out my reasoning before you accused me of hatred, did you.
Yes. There is a secular reason to ban polygamy.interesting. carrying on our further point, does that mean that your definition of marriage as "between two people who come together to make a household" constitutes a polygamous marriage ban
Are you talking about two lovebirds who have never met each other in person, in the first place, or just a soldier away from his family overseas, or a pro athlete who is on the road, playing games?and a geographically separated marriage ban?
There is a secular reason to ban incest.is your definition of marriage to be considered a cousin marriage ban?
Then, why are so many states banning it?you cannot ban what does not exist.
Let me make this perfectly clear: When the basis of said "definition" serves no purpose but to discriminate against a group they perceive to be morally wrong, without any secular reasoning behind it, then the population's permission doesn't mean sh*t.
And, at exactly which point did I demonstrate a willingness to overthrow popular sovereignty
as opposed to, the tyranny of the majority?
Natural rights are those that you're born with.
Prove it.
What else could it POSSIBLY be based on?
Yes. There is a secular reason to ban polygamy.
Then, why are so many states banning it?
A gay marriage ban IS a marriage definition exclusive to opposite-sex couples.
A = B
B = A
There is no difference AT ALL!
No, that's the policy of the United States Supreme Court.in your opinion,
I agree, there.however, you don't know the heart of any of those people; and frankly you don't have the right to illegalize thought, either.
It's OUR country and OUR government, too!the people have the right to define marriage however they please, it is their country and their government.
On a secular level, yes.at the point at which you stated that if the people did not agree with your definition of marraige, screw them, you were going to have it imposed anyway.
LGBT persons are coerced to remain unmarried.there is no tyranny involved here, your action is in no way coerced.
How so?the only calls for coercion are coming from the minority party in this debate.
Ok, I'll admit that I was a bit confused on the terminology, there.a point which in no way counters the fact that our Constitutional rights are negative, not positive. even the "Constitutional Scholar" and redistributor-in-chief President Obama says that.
When the will of the people violate the rights of a politically powerless minority, then yes.you're the one claiming the right to overthrow the will of the people here;
It has already been proven. The case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger has proven that marriage is a fundamental right. The case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management has proven that marriage is a fundamental right. The case of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right.the onus is on you to prove that you do.
I could say the same for the people who think that gays don't have the right to be married.well you have no idea because you are acting like a narrow minded bigot
Have YOU attempted to understand ME?who prefers to demonize his opposition rather than understand them.
Then, why do you bring it up?that you move to instantly accuse said opposition of the same mindset is an interesting case of projection; but that's ultimately neither here nor there.
I would actually want YOU to do the same to me.now, if you want to drop such a stance and move into actual reasonable debate where it is assumed that both sides are coming to the table in good will and with thoughtfullness then that would be just dandy. it would be significantly more maturity than we have witnessed (and this is sad) from much of the homosexual advocacy movement to date.
No, it is very relevant. If the people oppose gay marriage, but the only reason for doing that is due to moral disappoval of gays, then the ban does not pass rational basis review.so? why the people choose to support what they do is immaterial;
Who said anything about thought? ANYTHING AT ALL?!they are free to think whatever they want. part of that "first amendment" thingy.
I've already responded.incidentally, i'm still waiting for you to respond to our earlier posts on incest and polygamy;
How did you do that?when i pointed out that your own arguments (against incest for example) invalidated your stance.
They are saying that gay people cannot be married. Gay marriage is when gay people get married, so, by denying them the right to marry, they are banning gay marriage!they're not; they are specifically making sure that they have defined marriage in accordance with the will of their citizens.
Why do we need your respect when we can take our equality by force in the courts?MAG; does it ever occur to you that the 'bigot' and 'idiot' language is perhaps a major reason why your movement is producing such backlash? you don't win respect from the American people by deriding them.
Why do we need your respect when we can take our equality by force in the courts?
I actually wish that the gay rights movement would pay PR even less attention than it does now. We don't need you to agree with us; you'll do as we tell you whether you like it or not.
Yep, I tolerate bigots. I also find it ironic that they will go to hell. Same deal with the earily American Christians who burnt 'witches' at the stake.ah, tolerance.
A. Who says that?and people say that there is no way that the homosexual advocacy movement would ever push to force churches to accept them.
Thank you.
I only hope that you are serious about that, and not being sarcastic.
And THAT is where you are wrong.Since the marriage restriction is based on sex, it has to pass the Middle Tier of scrutiny of due process which says...
I disagree, there. If 99% of the population voted for it, there would be enough support to pass a federal amendment.If he can't provide such an interest then it doesn't matter if even 99% of the population voted for it,
Libertarians want the government out of marriage altogether.That is why true conservatives want the government out of marriage altogether and why fake conservatives like cpwill want to use the state to enforce a moral view.
And THAT is where you are wrong.
Historically, the level of judicial review applied to issues about gay rights at the federal level has been rational basis, the bottom tier of scrutiny.
Fortunately, that's all we need.
I disagree, there. If 99% of the population voted for it, there would be enough support to pass a federal amendment.
I agree with you, but the Supreme Court has yet to agree with you, on that.Um...no. I'm not talking about sexual orientation. I'm talking about gender. Not gay versus straight. I'm talking about man versus woman. The marriage ban laws are written to say, "marriage is defined as between one man and one woman". In other words, the law doesn't distinguish between sexual orientation, it distinguishes between sex. The Walker ruling came down to the conclusion that the state has no interest in mandating gender roles. In other words, the state cannot enforce an opposite sex definition of marriage without unnecessarily intruding in the lives of people who would want to marry someone of the same sex. Hence, why it has to pass the second tier of scrutiny. It doesn't even matter if those people are gay or not, the state has no rational interest by which to restrict marriage on the basis of sex, so it is Unconstitutional.
Then, why didn't you specify the exact population to which you were referring?I was speaking of 99% of the population in California. Yes, if 99% of the population of the United States voted for it, then it would easily pass as a Constituional Amendment.
Then, why didn't you specify the exact population to which you were referring?
I agree with you, but the Supreme Court has yet to agree with you, on that.
Then again, there's a chance that they may not even state the level of review that they will use. They failed to do so during Lawrence v. Texas. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has said that SCOTUS used intermediate scrutiny in that case, and that is binding precedent on the 9th Circuit district courts, but, outside the 9th Circuit, it is still fair game to be rational basis.
Furthermore, Judge Walker explicitly stated that he was using rational basis review. He merely stated that homosexuals would qualify for strict scrutiny, but that Proposition 8 failed to even pass rational basis review.
I disagree. I believe that they both have equal legs.The point I am trying to make is that a "government intrusion" argument has better legs than an "equal rights" argument.
I thought I had made it clear: I don't give a sh*t if the people accept gay rights.If people feel that gay rights advocates have forced gay marriage down their throats they are likely to be resistant towards accepting it, but if people feel that gay rights advocates have limited the state's interference in people's personal lives, then they will probably be more likely to embrace it.
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?