California Gays just wont give up! Damn Freaks!

[thatguy]

Originally Posted by This_person

That's not a right, that's up to the health insurance companies. Some do, some don't. The government has nothing to do with that (yet).Did you read my posts? Get a will. Get a civil union and have that be part of it.Find a 30+ year old dictionary through a thousand year old dictionary (yes, I'm making that part up, but you get my drift) and see if it really fits. Change for changes' sake is not smart nor worthwhileIf that were what they were called for hundreds of years, it would be true. Otherwise, why change what's worked for so long?

i didn't get past the self important 6 in a row that you put on the last page



Just like YOU have no right to tell women what to do with their bodies, YOU have no right to limit anyone from getting married.


If you don't like that they are also going to call their commitment a marrige, then you should change what you call yours. Again, a breeding contract would suffice.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

...incest exclusion is likewise non discriminatory as it applies to ALL siblings and immediate family without regard to gender, race, religion, orientation and so forth.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...incest exclusion is likewise non discriminatory as it applies to ALL siblings and immediate family without regard to gender, race, religion, orientation and so forth.

but you are still telling someone that they cant marry the one they love.
its not discriminatory.
likewise with gays, if the rule was, your gay so you cant marry anyone male or female, you might "might" have a case. But, they have the exact same rights to marry as any other person. there is no discrimination.

next, where in the constitution does it specifically spell out marriage rules.

this is not a constitutional issue, it is a states issue. there is no discrimination and there is no detriment to society as a whole by not allowing it.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by bcp

but you are still telling someone that they cant marry the one they love.
its not discriminatory.
likewise with gays, if the rule was, your gay so you cant marry anyone male or female, you might "might" have a case. But, they have the exact same rights to marry as any other person. there is no discrimination.

next, where in the constitution does it specifically spell out marriage rules.

this is not a constitutional issue, it is a states issue. there is no discrimination and there is no detriment to society as a whole by not allowing it.

If we tell all people who breathe they can't do this, that is not discriminatory. If we say mouth breathers can, but nose breathers can't, we are discriminating. if we tell ALL siblings 'no marrying sibling' then we are not discriminating.

The constitution has nothing to do with marriage, at all. It is a list of limits on government power in general including government treating the people equally. Gay marriage bans are unconstitutional because they are unequal. They are discriminatory. In my view.

Are we gonna go through this again?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Age, as I have said repeatedly, passes constitutional muster because it makes NO distinction based on race, creed, religion, gender or sexual habits.

There is no constitutional issue defining marriage as limited to two adults as limited contracts in terms of number of partners or members are nothing new and, again, as in age, it would apply evenly and without discrimination.

The Constitution, rightly so, says nothing about marriage at all, and shouldn't. The tenth amendment takes care of that for it. Thus, if a state says that you must be 6' tall to be a cop, you must. If it says you must pass a specific test and medical condition to drive a semi, but not a motorcycle, that's legal. If it says you must meet certain criteria to enter into certain contracts, that's legal. And, Article IV of the Constitution says the rest of the states have to recognize that. However, the states may set up their own criteria to obtain licenses or enter into contracts in their state.

So, you could have a valid driver's license in WI, and it's fine in MD until you move to MD. Then, you have to obtain a MD driver's license, and meet MD's criteria. Similar instances could possibly exist for marriage licenses/certificates. A doctor could be licensed/certified in one state, but not another.

It's not unconstitutional to define the boundaries of ability to enter a contract, as long as those boundaries are uniformly applied. A homosexual may enter into a marriage contract/license at any time so long as they meet the criteria of the contract. Should they choose to NOT marry someone of the opposite sex, they may enter into a civil union (in CA) as their union meets the criteria for that contract.

"Marriage" is denied no one who fits the definition of the union - it denies no one based upon race, creed, religion, gender, or sexual habits. "Civil Unions" are equally not denied to those that meet the requirements of that contract.

By all means, lose the opportunity to compromise and lose the whole thing in the process.

This is exactly what happened in CA. Homosexuals had a civil union ability but demanded it be re-named "marriage", and judges ignored the wishes of the population to find that "right" in their state constitution. So, the people changed their constitution.

Once again, I don't think this should be the first or prominent cards played by conservatives to show they're conservative. This is basically Obama's version of this as well, so it's not even a "conservative" notion by any means. It's just common sense, so if pushed on the issue, I think this should be the response. Priority low - don't make it something worked on hard. But, if others push it, there's no reason to give up principal for political gain/expediency.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by thatguy

i didn't get past the self important 6 in a row that you put on the last page

I hadn't read in a while and responded as I read through

Just like YOU have no right to tell women what to do with their bodies, YOU have no right to limit anyone from getting married.

I neither try to tell women what to do with their bodies nor do I limit anyone from getting married.

I do think it's wrong for women to kill the babies they willingly put in their bodies, and would support legislation that said so.

I do think it's fair, right, and just for the majority to define what a "marriage" is, so long as it is not discriminatory to race, color, creed, etc., and would support legislation that said so.

If you don't like that they are also going to call their commitment a marrige, then you should change what you call yours. Again, a breeding contract would suffice.

Again, you still make no sense. Why would I change thousands of years of tradition for 2% of the population, most of whom ALSO don't care about homosexual "marriage" beyond the concept?

[Xaquin44]

lol at gay marriage devaluing 'the meaning of the institution'

hell, I know people that have been divorced 3 times.

hahahaha

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

If we tell all people who breathe they can't do this, that is not discriminatory. If we say mouth breathers can, but nose breathers can't, we are discriminating. if we tell ALL siblings 'no marrying sibling' then we are not discriminating.

And, we are telling (via this CA law) that ALL males cannot marry males, and ALL females cannot marry females

The constitution has nothing to do with marriage, at all. It is a list of limits on government power in general including government treating the people equally. Gay marriage bans are unconstitutional because they are unequal. They are discriminatory. In my view.

Are we gonna go through this again?

Oh yeah

Yeah

Oh yeah


Yeah

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Your mixing apples, the harm to marriage has been caused by Hetrosexuals. Marriage as an institution, with a 50% success rate, is a statistical failure. You can not hold up the institution of Hetero Marriage as something that needs to be defended against gays, when the ones causing the damage arent Gay.

You're not understanding my point, I think.

I'm not suggesting that homosexuals are damaging marriage as an institution. I'm suggesting that the dilution of the concept of marriage by adding more types of unions into it slowly (over generations) hurts society's stability in general.

My marriage will not change one iota if gays marry, and I suspect yours will not either. But, the way our grandchildren and great-grandchildren view the institution of marriage will be somewhat less than the way our grandparents and great-grandparents did (our change starting in the 60's when the divorce laws were loosened). Our society is worse for the easier divorce and how it weakened the concept of marriage, and divorce rates increased dramatically because of it, not to mention "shacking up" (which isn't even considered "bad" anymore). Our posterity will equally be worse off.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

And, we are telling (via this CA law) that ALL males cannot marry males, and ALL females cannot marry females Oh

...and what of our transgender friends and sex changes and confused identity folks and the 'man' who just had a baby and the whole circus?

It is a fact; there are gay people. Always have been. Always will be. Your personal rejection of their relationships is not legitimate rationale to bar them from marrying one another any more than it is for religious compatibility, racial issues or age and so on.

The law does not expect you to like everyone. It just doesn't allow for your personal prejudices to be applied to others.