OC: Most fiscally conservative county in State based on election

[ZhugeLiang]

Originally Posted by Quatermass

Good boy, though it took you five posts to finally come up with that. Now why don't you explain specifically how gay marriage is protected under the 14th Amendment, using the language of the amendment that backs up your argument? (See if you can do it without the attitude.)

Yes, it took me that long to spell it out for you as it would be after getting over my shock at your lack of knowledge of basic civics.

So yeah, care to contribute to this discussion or do you just want to continue asking me questions?

[Quatermass]

Originally Posted by ZhugeLiang

Yes, it took me that long to spell it out for you as it would be after getting over my shock at your lack of knowledge of basic civics.

So yeah, care to contribute to this discussion or do you just want to continue asking me questions?

If you want to call what you're doing a "discussion", I suppose we could continue it indefinitely; I, on the other hand, am merely asking you to explain to me how the 14th Amendment protects same-sex marriage. You were bold enough in making the claim but seem to be unwilling or unable to back that claim up. And yes, you're going to have to do better than muttering "equal protection" without further explanation. You can get that much from the cable news shows; I'm trying to figure out if you've actually read the Constitution.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by ZhugeLiang

Sure, will you explain why you get to enjoy a right denied to homosexuals without making appeals to religion and tradition? Generally those who appose gay marriage lack the stones to admit what they truly believe, that they think gays are inferior.

i can't believe you really think that!! I guess our gay foster daughter feels inferior cause she doesn't believe in Gay Marriage.

Nita

[ZhugeLiang]

Originally Posted by Quatermass

If you want to call what you're doing a "discussion", I suppose we could continue it indefinitely; I, on the other hand, am merely asking you to explain to me how the 14th Amendment protects same-sex marriage. You were bold enough in making the claim but seem to be unwilling or unable to back that claim up. And yes, you're going to have to do better than muttering "equal protection" without further explanation. You can get that much from the cable news shows; I'm trying to figure out if you've actually read the Constitution.

Funny, I actually cited the Constitution and an amendment you probably hadn't even heard of until I told you about it. It's not my job to provide you the education you missed out on during your senior year of high school.

I just can't find much gray area in the statement, "no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

At this point, you're merely putting your fingers in your ears saying "blah, blah, blah, can't hear you!" I've cited my source. Care to explain why you disagree? You can't, can you?

[Quatermass]

Originally Posted by ZhugeLiang

I just can't find much gray area in the statement, "no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Neither can I. Now how exactly is this relevant to the issue of gay marriage? Marriage is a contract, the conditions of which are set by the individual states. Each state determines the conditions of that contract, and issues marriage licenses to interested parties provided they comply with the licensing standard (much like obtaining a driver's license, which isn't a "right" either.) According to the California Constitution, as of last November, part of the licensing standard that must be met to be legally married in this state is that parties entering into the contract must be of the opposite sex. It's a sad state of affairs when the people have to go to the polls to decide what "marriage" is, but here we are.

There is no 14th Amendment issue because marriage licenses are what they say they are, and the states have the exclusive right to determine what that may be. The validity of Proposition 8 was so open-and-shut that even the justices of the California supreme court couldn't throw it out.

At this point, you're merely putting your fingers in your ears saying "blah, blah, blah, can't hear you!" I've cited my source. Care to explain why you disagree? You can't, can you?

On the contrary, I had to practically beg you to cite the Constitutional language you believe backed up your claim of an equal-protection violation. You could have done that ages ago, and I could then have told you why you were wrong. You will undoubtedly spit back another venomous non-sequitur at this point, but this would all be so much easier if we could have a discussion on the facts.

Ah well, you can't do anything with some people....

[pinkgonegreen]

Shall we start a PROP 8 thread? This one kinda got hijacked, guys!

[Raelyn28]

Amusing boys, really amusing...

[ZhugeLiang]

Originally Posted by Quatermass

Neither can I. Now how exactly is this relevant to the issue of gay marriage? Marriage is a contract, the conditions of which are set by the individual states. Each state determines the conditions of that contract, and issues marriage licenses to interested parties provided they comply with the licensing standard (much like obtaining a driver's license, which isn't a "right" either.) According to the California Constitution, as of last November, part of the licensing standard that must be met to be legally married in this state is that parties entering into the contract must be of the opposite sex. It's a sad state of affairs when the people have to go to the polls to decide what "marriage" is, but here we are.

There is no 14th Amendment issue because marriage licenses are what they say they are, and the states have the exclusive right to determine what that may be. The validity of Proposition 8 was so open-and-shut that even the justices of the California supreme court couldn't throw it out.



On the contrary, I had to practically beg you to cite the Constitutional language you believe backed up your claim of an equal-protection violation. You could have done that ages ago, and I could then have told you why you were wrong. You will undoubtedly spit back another venomous non-sequitur at this point, but this would all be so much easier if we could have a discussion on the facts.

Ah well, you can't do anything with some people....

States also had a free-hand to determine how to handle races of people too. Under your interpretation, states could determine that people of different races are prohibited from being legally married. Hey, it's all about meeting the terms of a contract, right? You really don't know what you're talking about.

Non-sequitur, cute. It actually does follow, but it would take an educated, thinking person to see this. I'm amused with people justifying bigotry. Your post here hasn't countered my points at all. Keep trying.

[pinkgonegreen]

Ok ok...start a prop 8 - gay rights thread...that would be interesting to read in one spot! But this is a money vote thread :-)