No, that's the policy of the United States Supreme Court.
however, you don't know the heart of any of those people; and frankly you don't have the right to illegalize thought, either.
I agree, there.
However, I DO have the right to illegalize actions.
There's a big difference between having a thought and acting on that thought. You can hate black people if you want; it's when you actually start denying them jobs and promotions BECAUSE they're black, that it becomes a problem.
You are committing the
action of not allowing gays to get married, and
that is a problem.
I could care less if you hate gay people. I really couldn't care less. But, when you act on that hatred and deny them such fundamental rights as a marriage license, then it becomes a problem.
the people have the right to define marriage however they please, it is their country and their government.
It's OUR country and OUR government, too!
At what point did homosexuals and their supporters become non-citizens?
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.
On a secular level, yes.
there is no tyranny involved here, your action is in no way coerced.
LGBT persons are
coerced to remain unmarried.
the only calls for coercion are coming from the minority party in this debate.
How so?
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.
Ok, I'll admit that I was a bit confused on the terminology, there.
After looking it up, I
still maintain that marriage is a fundamental right, and you have no business denying it to anyone.
you're the one claiming the right to overthrow the will of the people here;
When the will of the people violate the rights of a politically powerless minority, then yes.
the onus is on you to prove that you do.
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.
It has already been proven.
well you have no idea because you are acting like a narrow minded bigot
I could say the same for the people who think that gays
don't have the right to be married.
who prefers to demonize his opposition rather than understand them.
Have YOU attempted to understand ME?
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.
Then, why do you bring it up?
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.
I would actually want YOU to do the same to me.
so? why the people choose to support what they do is immaterial;
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.
they are free to think whatever they want. part of that "first amendment" thingy.
Who said
anything about thought? ANYTHING AT ALL?!
incidentally, i'm still waiting for you to respond to our earlier posts on incest and polygamy;
I've already responded.
when i pointed out that your own arguments (against incest for example) invalidated your stance.
How did you do that?
they're not; they are specifically making sure that they have defined marriage in accordance with the will of their citizens.
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!