Why gay marriage bans are unconstitutional

[Deuce]

Well, I'm not going to read 8 pages on this . However IF it is ever part of the US Constitution then it is there for all time probably and not too likely to change. Also while for Two Centuries nobody thought at all about such an amendment NOW the Gay activists have been the catalyst in making some (admittedly some with bias) think there is no other option. They believe the overall society is under assault because others cannot perceive anything else being anywhere as important.

Except for the first sentence, everything you just wrote is wrong.

 

[CriticalThought]

school children are already being indoctrinated; need we revisit the fisting seminars and 'queering of America's schools' debate? and i have no doubt that many in the same movement that is willing to exercise tyranny and overthrow self-government in order to force social acceptance in the political arena would be willing to do so in the religious arena.

Ooooookay. You do realize this "indoctrination of children" you speak of is the simple act of informing children that same sex couples exist, right? Or is informing children of reality outside the jurisdiction of schools nowadays?

that's what government is, CT.

Funny, I thought the government enforced the Constitution. Do you have a problem with our Constitution?

 

[cpwill]

I don't think you get it.

Show me some evidence that people in the South (here racism was most prominent) was sympathetic to MLK's message at the time that he said it.

Yes, most people are sympathetic to MLK now, many decades after the battle against racism has already been won.

on the contrary; that is precisely how MLK won his battle; he refused to meet violence and hatred with violence and hatred (IE: he properly eschewed your amoral approach), and convinced a majority of Americans of the moral rightness of his cause. he convinced Americans, as opposed to trying to coerce them; and they in turn PROPERLY altered the law THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE. the Civil Rights Act was not the result of finding a sympathetic judge.

 

[cpwill]

Ooooookay. You do realize this "indoctrination of children" you speak of is the simple act of informing children that same sex couples exist, right? Or is informing children of reality outside the jurisdiction of schools nowadays?

The Queering of Elementary Education

President Barack Obama’s safe schools czar wrote a foreword to a book in 1999 that called for elementary school children to explore their sexual identities, for teachers to incorporate homosexual themes in grades K-5, for discarding a “hetero-normative” approach to education and for “acknowledging children as sexual beings.”..

In his foreword, Jennings rejects the premise that sexuality should not be taught in elementary schools by arguing that it already is taught, but to instill and promote anti-gay hatred.

“I often find myself confronted with people who attack me for ‘bringing this issue into our schools,’” he wrote. “How laughable this statement is, I think. The reality is that this issue--anti-gay bigotry--is already in our schools. Little kids are learning to hate, and they’re learning it right now in elementary schools across America.”..

The book’s fourth chapter begins with a scene of kindergarteners reenacting Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott. It goes on to ask why not envision another reenactment. “Children have made a banner that says ‘Stonewall Inn.’” The reference was to a June 1969 riot by homosexuals outside the Stonewall bar, a riot viewed as a civil rights watershed event among gay activists.

[cpwill notes: see the difference, MiddleAgedGamer? a watershed moment for the Civil Rights movement is an act of courageous nonviolent protest. a watershed moment for your movement is when you rioted. nonviolent protest / meeting violence with love / engaging in a campaign to seek the American People's agreement rather than obedience = success. riots/ coercion / threats = American Public turns against you = You don't get your way. Witness what happened in California; probably one of the bluer and more 'progressive' of the states available to you. even the Republican leadership wants to expand the definition of marriage. a nonviolent campaign there to demonstrate to people the rightness of your cause would probably have seen a state - for the first time - legitimately choose to expand marriage to include homosexual unions. instead your movement chose the quick "get our way" route by finding a sympathetic judge to throw out the law and what happened? all that you did was spark a constitutional amendment. Long Term, the American People will win; and you can leverage that, or you can (futilely) fight it.]

That chapter was written by Betsy J. Cahill of New Mexico State University and Rachel Theilheimer of Manhattan Community College. The two go on to write: “Teachers can tell children about the lesbian and gay people they know or know about. In the video, It’s Elementary, a teacher and children brainstorm ideas about gays and lesbians...Finally, the greatest influence of openly lesbian, gay and bisexual teachers may be on students’ relationships to political activism, and social movements,” he wrote. “By witnessing up close the importance of political advocacy on a teacher’s job security and social position, children’s understanding of the importance of activism and its relevance to their lives might be enhanced.”... “‘queerly raised’ children are agents” using “strategies of adaptation, negotiation, resistance, and subversion...”



nope, no indoctrination of children at all. sexualizing students? surely not, no sir, no way.

oh. wait.

Jennings' group GLSEN had a reading list that not only explicitly promoted homosexual activity, but explicitly boasted of sexual activities in grade school and sex between adults and children below the age of consent.

Hey Kids, if you're going to be raped by older men, just make sure they use a condom

Students as young as 12 given graphic instruction in bizarre homosexual sex acts by state employees: ...Fisting [forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap....[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode...

We have the actual audio recordings of what went on at one such event in March of 2000. Children as young as 12 were instructed by adults (state employees!) how to perform a range of dangerous and perverted homosexual sex acts.

These included: homosexual oral sex techniques, inserting one’s entire hand in someone else’s rectum, sado-masochism techniques, girls using “dildos” and rubbing their sex organs together for pleasure, and much more... GLSEN (and Kevin Jennings) did not dispute that the recordings were genuine or that the events did not take place as we described them. Instead, they tried to get a court to ban the tape and sue us. In fact, Jennings defended the event...

Funny, I thought the government enforced the Constitution. Do you have a problem with our Constitution?

first off, no, our government does not enforce our Constitution. Our Constitution is a limiting document of negative liberties that seeks to restrain government, especially at the federal level. i do think if we bothered to follow it we would find ourselves governed by the finest system ever designed. but that does not change the nature of what government is.

 

[cpwill]

No, it's a matter of "You're discriminating against me. STOP the damned discrimination!"

we aren't "discriminating" againt you any more than we are "discriminating" against polygamists or those in incestual relationships. that you don't agree with the publics' definition of marriage doesn't make it "discrimination"

Litigation is a condition 1 weapon? :?

in the comparison, yes. the weapon you are bringing to bear on this situation is way out of proportion to the issue.

What process?

Representative Government

if you are an advocate for a particular cause; you are expected to convince a majority of the people (or their representatives) to agree with / support you.

We're not demanding ice cream. We're demanding equal marriage rights.

no, you are demanding an equal social acceptance; let's be clear here. everything that is a "marriage benefit" can be attaind through civil unions, powers of attorney, and so forth. the one "benefit" that you are currently "denied" is punative taxation based on your partners' income.

 

[cpwill]

Ok, clarify something for me.

What IS your stance on same-sex marriage?

and i'm still waiting to hear your explanation on why you hate muslims.

 

[Ned Racine]

I'm curious to no end why SOME have a laser like focus on this issue on various forums like a Zenith (???) Why not just leave it at Legal Partnerships which has ever so slowly been accepted by most Corporations and become the norm in a few States.(??)

Will this present Full Marriage Law(s) in some places be expanded to bring on Relgous contention(??) In England some of the more Conservative Episcopal establishment has feared this all along.

 

[cpwill]

For the sake of posterity?

What the hell do future generations have to do with it?

well i think that this will pair nicely with the "why should we try to convince Americans when we can force them to obey us" quote from earlier.

Listen, I couldn't care less if anyone likes me. I'm a jackass; I admit it.

However, I have found that I get much better results if I am impulsive, assertive, and pushy.

well i think you are in for quite a surprise if you try that approach with Americans as a group. i think you are also likely in for a surprise when you run into someone willing to be a greater asshole than you, as well.

1. I was at Wal-Mart, one day, getting some groceries. A man came up to me and told me that what I was getting wasn't good for me, and that I needed for vegetables. I got pissed off, but I ignored him. Later, as I was checking out, he came up to me and tried to give me a bag of canned vegetables. At that point, I said, "Ok, apparently, being nice hasn't worked, so let me try this approach: If you don't leave me alone, you will go to jail for harassing me."

more than a bit of an overreaction there, though i agree he's out of line that doesn't excuse you doing the same.

2. A few years ago, I was terminated from an occupation for a reason that was discriminatory. I did not just take this sitting down; I filed charges with the EEOC. At the EEOC mediation, I managed to get a contract for employment that was so good, that, normally, only celebrities and executives typically get clauses like this (e.g. instead of the law telling me what I can't be fired for, the contract told me what I can be fired for), all because I was prepared to "shove" my beliefs about equal employment opportunity "down his throat."

ah. so you are part of the problem of our society being overlitigous.

He probably hated me (and probably still does; I later quit on my own accord), but I didn't give a rats ass about that. I cared about results.

so you keep claiming.

we had a guy who had the "pushy aggresive so i can get MINE" approach in the company. he actually got shot one day. care to guess how long his medevac took to show up? give you a hint; it was longer than it had taken us to run a medevac to the exact same spot a couple of days prior when another guy got hit with a grenade. the kid was actually laying half out of an armored humvee, bleeding out and screaming in pain.... and nobody really cared. he had wasted all of his "i'm going to be willing to help this guy" chits a long time prior. later his mom wrote him a letter complaining that if only the sniper had hit 2 inches to the left he would have broken this guy's heart, the way he had broken hers.

see, that's the kind of reaction you get when that's your approach to people. the next time a hate crime occurs.... people will shrug. when a constitutional amendment movement get's started (as it probably will); people will line up behind it. people will begin groups to insist - in the name of presenting both sides and informing children as to the debate - that an anti homosexual agenda be taught in schools along with a pro-homosexual one. when Americans, as a group, are pushed; we push back.

Crit, believe it or not, I'm not that hard to convince. I'd be happy to adapt your approach... if you can show me how being "nice" about it and waiting for the general public to become convinced will get the same results as taking it to the court.

See: Civil Rights Movement; Rev. Martin Luther King Jr

the Amerian public largely didn't care when Police gunned down black panthers. they cared when MLK's non-violent protestors got beaten and hit with jets of water from firehoses.

Keep in mind, it's about results.

RESULTS!

F*CKING RESULTS!

results......


hmmm......


i would have to say that if that is the case then either you are incredibly short-sighted, or the 'results' you are looking for are something other than that which is under discussion. have you never heard of a "backlash"?

how did this brilliant plan work out in California? oh wait, it led to a state-wide movement to amend the constitution? hmmm...

might be odd to point this out; but you might take a leson from the pro-life people. a couple of decades ago quite a few of them were into the short-term "it's all about RESULTS" approach, and they began to attack abortion clinics and doctors. certainly those clinics and doctors performed fewer abortions due to it. but their willingness to utilize force without getting the support of the American people lost them public support, and the pro-choice movement surged. The Pro-Life movement realized this and switched tack; moving instead into a campaign designed to convince their fellow Americans of the rightness of their cause. the result? for the first time last year more Americans are pro-life than pro-choice. the Pro-Life movement is winning, and it's a win that will produce lasting results. because they followed the demands of our Representative Government PROCESS.

 

[cpwill]

I'm curious to no end why SOME have a laser like focus on this issue on various forums like a Zenith (???) Why not just leave it at Legal Partnerships which has ever so slowly been accepted by most Corporations and become the norm in a few States.(??)

because it's not about actual legal equality or equal access to benefits.

 

[joe six-pack]

because it's not about actual legal equality or equal access to benefits.

No, you still don't get it.

This civil rights movement for homosexuals is only about legal equality and equal access to public benefits. Want proof? Any gay couple can go to a gay-friendly Church and get married. Any gay couple can have a private ceremony at home or public place and preform a "marriage" ceremony. The only thing that this movement is about is giving equal representation to homosexual or hermaphodite Americans.

Almost every State that bans gay marriage also bans "legal parterships." Texas even had an anti-gay-sex Law before it was ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Ned Racine]

Actually even if all States fully accepted Same Sex Marriage it would still not be enough for most Gays. The driving factor in all of this is to offend the larger society. It may well be mostly subliminal but if this were not the case then some of the more outrageous participants in Gay Pride parades in various Cities would not be allowed. Common Sense and Common decency would bar them by at least the more Civil larger Gay Community . However the consensus is to irritate others and to shove certain images into the faces of the unwilling.

 

[Travelsonic]

Actually even if all States fully accepted Same Sex Marriage it would still not be enough for most Gays.

Seems like a gross generalization, but it depends on what you mean. Wanting to be treated as equals in the eyes of the law, and at least being able to live thei day to day life free of harassment et all seems to be one of the major goals [gay marriage overlapping into this quite a bit] that I see [and see nothing wrong with].

The driving factor in all of this is to offend the larger society.

Really? :roll:

What proof is it that this is the case?
And for that matter, what proof is it that the larger society is offended by gays and their push for equality?

However the consensus is to irritate others and to shove certain images into the faces of the unwilling.

[citation needed]

 

[joe six-pack]

Actually even if all States fully accepted Same Sex Marriage it would still not be enough for most Gays. The driving factor in all of this is to offend the larger society. It may well be mostly subliminal but if this were not the case then some of the more outrageous participants in Gay Pride parades in various Cities would not be allowed. Common Sense and Common decency would bar them by at least the more Civil larger Gay Community . However the consensus is to irritate others and to shove certain images into the faces of the unwilling.

Gay Pride parades have nothing to do with the legal struggle for equality.

They have everything to do with exercising their right to free speech and free assembly. Get a clue before you post a response, please.

 

[CriticalThought]

because it's not about actual legal equality or equal access to benefits.

Let's take a look at the map. Dark red states make both same sex marriage and civil unions illegal. Do you really want to argue that there is ground for getting equal rights through civil unions?

File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm curious to no end why SOME have a laser like focus on this issue on various forums like a Zenith (???) Why not just leave it at Legal Partnerships which has ever so slowly been accepted by most Corporations and become the norm in a few States.(??)

Norm? Are you kidding?

 

[Ned Racine]

Gay Pride parades have nothing to do with the legal struggle for equality.

They have everything to do with exercising their right to free speech and free assembly. Get a clue before you post a response, please.

The Right to Free Speech or assembly is not the issue here, but a society careening towards it's destruction possibly might just take additional notice of those clearly trying to offend. What's amazing is that because of FCC guidelines the local news coverage of many of these Pride Pasrades is forced to leave out some of the more colorful floats, and Human peculiarities. Granted in SF it might not raise an eyebrow , but still some of it is indefensable AND in some Communities certain city/county employeees are sometimes forced to participate in the overall parade. In San Diego it's still a long running court case.

 

[CriticalThought]

a society careening towards it's destruction possibly might just take additional notice of those clearly trying to offend.

There are extreme members of every group that try to offend. Also, how do gay pride parades lead to "society careenig towards its destruction".

Your comments are pretty damn offensive and ill informed.

 

[roguenuke]

The Right to Free Speech or assembly is not the issue here, but a society careening towards it's destruction possibly might just take additional notice of those clearly trying to offend. What's amazing is that because of FCC guidelines the local news coverage of many of these Pride Pasrades is forced to leave out some of the more colorful floats, and Human peculiarities. Granted in SF it might not raise an eyebrow , but still some of it is indefensable AND in some Communities certain city/county employeees are sometimes forced to participate in the overall parade. In San Diego it's still a long running court case.

"a society careening towards it's destruction" is your personal opinion. You have no proof this is true. And certainly no proof that giving gays the right to marry will cause or worsen this society, even if it is true.

What some may or may not be doing should have no bearing on them getting the right to marry. We allow nudists to get married. We allow people with extreme sexual fantasies and fetishes to marry, provided that aren't violating any laws.

 

[Ned Racine]

The extreme fetish people you describe are all Male/Female tandems When they get hitched - so under Our very Fair and Long Historical precepts it presents no difficulty. Also most Nudists were clothed when their ceremony took place and consisted of One Male/One Female.

 

[winston53660]

The extreme fetish people you describe are all Male/Female tandems When they get hitched - so under Our very Fair and Long Historical precepts it presents no difficulty. Also most Nudists were clothed when their ceremony took place and consisted of One Male/One Female.

So.........

 

[joe six-pack]

The Right to Free Speech or assembly is not the issue here, but a society careening towards it's destruction possibly might just take additional notice of those clearly trying to offend.

Define how a "society" can be "destroyed" by a few yahoo's in a parade?

Free speech in a Gay Pride parade is irrelevant to the discussion of legal equality.

Please get that straight.

What's amazing is that because of FCC guidelines the local news coverage of many of these Pride Pasrades is forced to leave out some of the more colorful floats, and Human peculiarities. Granted in SF it might not raise an eyebrow , but still some of it is indefensable AND in some Communities certain city/county employeees are sometimes forced to participate in the overall parade. In San Diego it's still a long running court case.

Again, this is irrelevant to any discussion of legal marriage.

Even the Klu Klux Klan, a Right-wing terrorist organization, is allowed free assembly.

This is a completely unrelated subject than "Gay Marriage" or "legal equality."

Does that clear it up for you?

 

[Ned Racine]

No, it isn't cleared up because many of the more militant Gays are like 100% intolerant and if outnumbering those in opposition would & have gladly resorted to menacing illegal tactics such as incidents directed against the LDS church in the wake of the 2008 Prop. 8 Vote - the one they lost 52/48 in California.

Also you avoided the coercive issue about Local Government forcing employees opposed to this nonsense to participate inwhat some see as Immoral activities, but is at this juncture clearly Political.

 

[Travelsonic]

No, it isn't cleared up because many of the more militant Gays are like 100% intolerant

[citations?]

LDS church in the wake of the 2008 Prop. 8 Vote - the one they lost 52/48 in California.

The prop 8 thing was, IMO, complete bull**** and the LSD should, if proven to have significantly contributed to the legislative effort to pass it financially, be stripped of its tax exempt status.

Also you avoided the coercive issue about Local Government forcing employees opposed to this nonsense to participate inwhat some see as Immoral activities, but is at this juncture clearly Political.

Forced to? How, besides not being able to discriminate based on sexual orientation?

 

[Ned Racine]

The Lesbian Former Fire Chief of San Diego City assigned one engine Company (all Male) to be in the line of March. She basically knew those Guys wanted no part of it but since this yearly gathering has gone on now for over 20 years she knew there would be no immediate repercussions. How many balked is unknown , but a few Guys had to March . Some later sued even though their normally supportive Union backed away. This has gone on now for a few years.

The Parade draws nearly all local politicians who NOW want the support of Gays most of whom Vote on Emotional issues. Once again IF the more flamboyant types were kept away from this parade possibly the larger community could digest it better.

 

[roguenuke]

The extreme fetish people you describe are all Male/Female tandems When they get hitched - so under Our very Fair and Long Historical precepts it presents no difficulty. Also most Nudists were clothed when their ceremony took place and consisted of One Male/One Female.

The current marriage laws are not fair. Heterosexuals are free to marry whomever they believe they are in love with, homosexuals are not. Men are allowed to only make a woman a legal member of their family, not another man. Women are only allowed to make a man a legal member of their family, not another woman. These things are not fair.

And historical precedents on marriage are not a good argument. Especially considering that historical precedent would say that your father, as my own, could choose our husband, whether we even liked the guy or not and whether we wished to get married or not. It also prevented certain marriages between people due to religion, race, social status, wealth, and family feuds/ties (some were prevented legally, others simply by the precedent that parents/fathers must approve of the marriage).

 

[Ned Racine]

Past gross unfairness in some quarters is no excuse to torpedo the Foundations of the Overall society. What rings rather clear here on the part of many who think Same Sex Marriage is just another Kindly benevolent step towards a more equal society (???) is that they can in no way be objective on this topic. To them it is the Magna Charta or Tours or Gettysburg or the Battle of Britain - and more importantly many IF they do live to see Same Sex Marriage fully legally implemented will not then simply back away . Many will pursue those they know will always be opposed for Ethical or Religous reasons and a new round of vindictiveness will start up with some of the same players.

BTW - if in the 70's or 80's you asked most Gays if Civil Unions would simply be okay . To be more than Fair and adequate - I believe 75% + would have agreed. Now these Civil Unions exist in many locales, but the Militants remain unsatisfied.