Legislative/Judicial "Legalizing" Of Gay Marriage Needs To Stop

The stupid is claiming facts that don't exist in the law. Speaking of stupid, still waiting for you to respond in that other thread about basic word definitions you still can't grasp.

- - - Updated - - -

Nowhere in the law does that statement exist about gay marriage. Thanks for proving you lied about the content.

 

equal protection clause protects from discriminatin based on race, religion or gender

 

Rahl claimed that the law protects based on race, religion or gender. He did not lie. You lied that he said that gay marriage is included in the law.

Oh, I just proved that you lied about the content.

 

Gender does not include "who one chooses to have sex with" in its description. Again, gays are promoting this play on sympathies as "we're the only ones being excluded from marriage based on who we have sex with". And that flatly isn't true. Rahl, you have been caught lying. Close blood relatives, gays, minors and people with multiple sexual partners may also not marry.

"Gender" is not a behavior, it's a description of DNA and the corresponding reproductive organs. It's saying that men and women cannot be discriminated against generally. Though they are all the time. Men cannot use women's bathrooms and vice versa. Men cannot work as girls' gym supervisors in the showers. Women cannot work as boys showers supervisors. We see limits set for paramaters that men and women can enjoy all the time.

 

No one should regard the homophobic foolishness you are expressing here.

Please, be reasonable.

 

Noting facts isn't homophobic. It just is. You're going to have to stop calling names as a substitute for lucid debate. If you cannot produce a legitimate opposing viewpoint to my pointing out that gender isn't equivalent to who one has sex with, dont' say anything at all. I thought name-calling wasn't allowed here at PF?

 

Legislative/Judicial "Legalizing" Of Gay Marriage Needs To Stop

THAT'S RIGHT!

HOW DARE THOSE LEGISLATURES TRY TO MAKE LAWS AND THOSE COURTS TRY TO INTERPRET THEM!

On the other hand, there are people on this board who would be vastly improved if they went and boiled their head.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Where are these limits it states in Section 1 nothing about limits you have equal protections. And since we ratified a treaty in the UN declaring marriage is a RIGHT even though makeup of the marriage parties neutral combined with the 14th Amendment homosexual, polygamist and group marriages all could be declared by the courts as constitutional and bans on them unconstitutional.

Which is fine I think many forms of household is good.

 

Polygamists, minors, siblings and gays are all not allowed to be married. Just thought I'd point out the entire group of sexual behaviors currently banned from the social icon for people having sex together. The mistake gays are making is in misinterpreting Justice Kennedy's decriminalization of sodomy to mean "society now sanctions the behavior and upholds it as normal".

He in no way said that and in fact said the opposite in his Opinion. Sodomy is on par with smoking. And we would not promote smoking to kids as normal. Neither shall we promote the #1 sexual vector of HIV transmission as normal. The alarming increase of new HIV cases in boys ages 13-29 [34% above normal in just the last few years] means we have to take a look at what we are doing when we promote a known deadly behavior as "normal" to kids...

And in related news....

If gay is "born that way" why is there a sudden increase of 34% in new HIV cases in boys and very young men? A sudden and drastic change in using condoms? Or a sudden and drastic increase in the numbers of youngsters willing to give sodomy a try?

 

the 14th amendment precludes discrimination based on gender.

repeatedly proven lies.

 

As I said rahl, gender is not the same as sexual behavior. As it stands, both genders may marry according to the "sexual behavior" rules of marriage. These rules do not only exclude people of both genders engaged in gay sex, but also those having sex with minors, their close blood relatives and more than one other partner.

We choose which sexual behaviors qualify for marriage and which don't. And we don't have that rammed down our throats by a few bought or frightened or heavily-biased [gay "judge" Walker who wanted to marry his boyfriend overturning Prop 8 in CA] politicians.

 

Despite the fact that I think that homosexuality is the joke of the ages, I think gay marriage should be voted on by the voters, and if voted as legitimate, fine. It's up to the voters to determine definitions. But judges should NOT be deciding the issue.

That is an aberration.

- - - Updated - - -

That is correct. Gender is not the same as 'gender preference'. That is the great mistake. Now maybe we should pass an amendment saying that 'gender preference' is a protected group, but until then, it isn't.

 

Polygamist can be married in many countries where homosexuality is banned.

Minors can be married in most states with parental approval.

Same sex partners can be married in 11 states now.

Can you possibly be any more wrong in one sentence?

- - - Updated - - -

So if the voters in New York voted to ban the private ownership of guns, and a court overthrew that law- you would be saying that the judge should not have stepped in- and that its an aberation?

 

Sexual behavior has nothing to do with marriage.

And for some people- its all about whether they are gay or not.

- - - Updated - - -

That is exactly the reason why.

 

See, the thing about tradition is that it, thankfully, isn't an order you have to follow. There was a time when quaint traditions like setting dogs on tethered bears were commonplace. We also used to, until very recently, traditionally hunt deer and foxes with packs of dogs. Marriage, as you prefer to understand it, is no less liable to change as a concept. Don't like it? Look up the word 'Luddite'.

 

We used to have women's suffrage "rammed down our throats" by those little dears who really should know their place-(sewing, cooking and warming hubby's slippers for when Alpha Jerk comes home). Ah, those were the days, eh Silhouette?

Can you imagine women not having the vote? In not too many years people will be wondering why same-sex marriage was ever an issue.

 

gender is not sexual preference

Enjoy your fail.

- - - Updated - - -

He did lie because gender is not sexual preference. Try again.

 

I'm not sure what you think your point is here? it has no effect on my statement.

race is not a sexual preference either. are you suggesting that interracial marraige is not covered by the 14th amendment?


I'll kindly ask you to retract your accusation that I lied.

 

I've already been over this with you.

 

You keep saying that.

Has Walker married his boyfriend?

Did he ever say he intended to?

Here is what Walker himself said:

It would not be appropriate for any judge's sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin or gender to stop them from presiding over a case, he said.

But apparently Silhouette thinks that only a heterosexual judge could judge this, like only a white judge could handle a case regarding civil rights for african americans and only a male judge could handle a court case regarding women's rights.


As a matter of fact- the judge which reviewed the issue answered it quite well in his opinion slapping down the homophobes:

Sponsors of the voter-approved 2008 ban offered no evidence that then-Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had planned to marry his partner and can’t rely on mere speculation to show that he had a conflict of interest, said James Ware, who succeeded Walker as chief judge and inherited the case.

The fact that a judge is in a relationship doesn’t necessarily mean he is “so interested in marrying the person that he would be unable to exhibit the impartiality which, it is presumed, all federal judges maintain,” Ware said.

A gay judge is entitled to rule in a gay-rights case, even if his ruling could provide him “some speculative future benefit,” Ware said.

The contrary argument by Walker’s opponents, he said, would require “recusal of minority judges in most, if not all, civil rights cases.”

“The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification,” wrote Ware in his ruling, issued a day after he heard oral arguments in the matter.

 

Of course it does. You lied when you said gay marriage is covered by the 14th amendment. It isn't.

Never said it was. Are you even reading what you are replying to?

A ruling determined that you cannot discriminate against race when it came to marriage and they were very specific. The marriage was between a man and woman. Nowhere did they state anything about gay marriage. You enjoy implanting statements never made by the writers of the Constitution that were never written anywhere. Thats the lie and dishonesty you are displaying.

You can kindly keep asking. You still lied. Gay marriage is not in the 14th amendment anywhere.

If you were an honest person who actually cared about the Constitution you would be pursuing an Amendment to the Constitution. But you know that isn't going to happen so you lie about what the Constitution actually states to force your personal opinion into law.

 

all civil rights are covered by the 14th amendment. marriage is a basic civil right. I lied about nothing, and I'll ask you to retract your accusation.

race and gender are treated the same under the 14th amendment. you are asserting that gender is not covered by the 14th, so you would have to concede that neither is race.

no limitation was made in that ruling with respect to marriage being only between a man and a woman. sorry.

marriage is a basic civil right, protected by the 14th amendment. that isn't going to stop being true no matter how hard you stomp your feet.

I have no need for a new amendment. it's already covered under the 14th's equal protection clause.

 

Now you are lying when you claim civil rights cover gay marriage. Not only is that not the Constitution no Supreme Court has ever ruled it as such. Please stop lying.

Gender is not sexual preference. You can keep lying it wont change the wording or the rulings by the Supreme Court.

No expansion was made for gay marriage. Sorry. But the subject matter for the ruling was one man and one woman marriage. Enjoy your fail. You really ought to actually read the ruling before commenting on it.

And gay marriage will never be in the Constitution no matter how hard you stomp your feet.

Because you know you can't ever get it passed.

You can continue to lie but the facts are absolute.

Gay marriage is never mentioned nor addressed in the 14th amendment

No Supreme court has ever interpreted the 14th amendment to include gay marriage.

Lie all you like, you won't change the truth.

 

Majority rule, minority rights. That is what the constitution is based upon, and should be what LGBT laws are based upon, too.

 

Actually it is his belief in what the Constitution covers.

And that is the essence of the Prop 8 case, and the DOMA case being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Now if you want some actual lies- I can point you to any post in this thread that refers negatively to Harvey Milk.