Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Saudi Arabia, there are laws that say that anyone can worship, just as long as they follow Islam. The Christians might feel they're being discriminated against, but the laws apply to everyone, how is that not equal?
I have been arguing this point for years. It doesn't seem to come up much, probably everything is emotion these days, especially for Libs. We do not have a right to marry. Libs (ones in charge, not common man libs) don't care about rights anyway, so I don't know why they say that. All they seem to care about is getting rid of Capitalism and telling white people that they should be guilty for what the hell ever - while most Lib leaders are white. But, even this is not the point. Libs don't care about justice, the care only about revenge. Didn't some black woman say recently that she isn't going to hire white people or something, which doesn't matter to me because she should be able to hire anyone she wants and to no hire whome she wants, but if a white person had said that or anything that even remotely similar, rioters would be burning down the world. As far as rights, we have the rights we are granted in the Constitution other connected to them. Again, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. That is why it has been assumed, and still is mostly, to be a state issue. That is why the Supreme court didn't rule on it. It should go back to the state court in CA, which upheld the vote of the people, because if the Supreme Court (the highest federal court) says, effectively, that it doesn't have jurisdiction, the federal district court should not either. Only using logic here.
I wasn't aware Saudi Arabia was a democracy. What do their laws have to do with ours? They never claimed to be a free country or to grant their citizens justice or equality or the right to pursue happiness. We did.
I think (I may be wrong) that he meant to compare:
Anti-gays say, "But gays can marry! As long as they marry only someone of the opposite sex."
Saudi Arabia says: "But everyone has the choice of worshipping! As long as they worship only Islam."
I have been arguing this point for years. It doesn't seem to come up much, probably everything is emotion these days, especially for Libs. We do not have a right to marry. Libs (ones in charge, not common man libs) don't care about rights anyway, so I don't know why they say that. All they seem to care about is getting rid of Capitalism and telling white people that they should be guilty for what the hell ever - while most Lib leaders are white. But, even this is not the point. Libs don't care about justice, the care only about revenge. Didn't some black woman say recently that she isn't going to hire white people or something, which doesn't matter to me because she should be able to hire anyone she wants and to no hire whome she wants, but if a white person had said that or anything that even remotely similar, rioters would be burning down the world. As far as rights, we have the rights we are granted in the Constitution other connected to them. Again, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. That is why it has been assumed, and still is mostly, to be a state issue. That is why the Supreme court didn't rule on it. It should go back to the state court in CA, which upheld the vote of the people, because if the Supreme Court (the highest federal court) says, effectively, that it doesn't have jurisdiction, the federal district court should not either. Only using logic here.
That is not a good comparison, because that is a country that is not ours. If they are not obeying their laws, they have to deal with that. We use our Gov't that is supposed to guarentee freedom of religion. I don't know if theirs does, but that is on them. Are you suggesting that because the USA does this or that, every country should?
That is not a good comparison, because that is a country that is not ours. If they are not obeying their laws, they have to deal with that. We use our Gov't that is supposed to guarentee freedom of religion. I don't know if theirs does, but that is on them. Are you suggesting that because the USA does this or that, every country should?
Charles Sands
37129
It's an excellent comparison of the false argument anti-gay individuals are trying to make. There is no freedom of marriage if one is forced to marry ONLY people of the opposite gender. And there is no freedom of religion if one has to worship only one religion.
Marriage is a social and financial contract for people who are:
(1) Not related by blood;
(2) Not mentally ill;
(3) An adult (not a child);
(4) Not being coerced.
I have been arguing this point for years. It doesn't seem to come up much, probably everything is emotion these days, especially for Libs. We do not have a right to marry. Libs (ones in charge, not common man libs) don't care about rights anyway, so I don't know why they say that. All they seem to care about is getting rid of Capitalism and telling white people that they should be guilty for what the hell ever - while most Lib leaders are white. But, even this is not the point. Libs don't care about justice, the care only about revenge. Didn't some black woman say recently that she isn't going to hire white people or something, which doesn't matter to me because she should be able to hire anyone she wants and to no hire whome she wants, but if a white person had said that or anything that even remotely similar, rioters would be burning down the world. As far as rights, we have the rights we are granted in the Constitution other connected to them. Again, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. That is why it has been assumed, and still is mostly, to be a state issue. That is why the Supreme court didn't rule on it. It should go back to the state court in CA, which upheld the vote of the people, because if the Supreme Court (the highest federal court) says, effectively, that it doesn't have jurisdiction, the federal district court should not either. Only using logic here.
Charles Sands
37129
The constitution does not grant us rights. There was actually a big debate on whether rights should even be included or not because there was concern that someone might try and say that we only have the rights that are listed. What the constitution does do is lay out the the powers that the federal government has. Any power not listed is reserved for the states and the people.
Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.
Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “[i]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
Wow. What an adult reaction. If everyone does it, it has be right, and not only that, if you don't agree, you automatically hate them. Gotta love those libs.
Wow. What an adult reaction. If everyone does it, it has be right, and not only that, if you don't agree, you automatically hate them. Gotta love those libs.
Charles Sands
37129
Well, it's not going anywhere. The SCOTUS struck down DOMA already.
Wow. What an adult reaction. If everyone does it, it has be right, and not only that, if you don't agree, you automatically hate them. Gotta love those libs.
Charles Sands
37129
Well when you start a thread asking a ridiculous question you should expect an equally ridiculous response
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
