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.
Capital Punishment will also do nothing to me ,yet I oppose that also.
I thought we,the citizens, got a right to voice opinion on laws without the criteria that the law must affect us directly.
Love the legal ignorance.
We are a Constitutional Republic for a reason. Our Founders sought to guard against any Tyranny of the Majority where Equality and Freedoms were concerned. Where those two noble concepts are concerned, laws are NOT open to the democratic process. Any and all laws created simply MUST pass the Constitutional Litmus Test.
The SCOTUS noted in Loving vs Virginia that marriage was a basic Civil Right.
There is simply no valid secular reason to deny homosexuals the Civil Right to enjoy the same government institution that we heteroes enjoy, ie marriage. No, religion does not own title to tthe term or practice, and never has in this Nation.
The current resistance to offering the basic Equality of Marriage to gays is based on two things. Religious doctrine and/or just plain "Ick".
The latter just doesn't make any sence when referencing laws, and religious doctrine introduced into US Secular Law is simply Constitutionally Illegal.
Do you have a right to state your opinions? Certainly, everyone has an inherent right in this nation to make themselves look like fools when they base those opinions purely on outdated, draconic mideival religious zealotry, peer pressure fearing friends and relatives might think you "less hetero" for standing up for basic Equality, or some inner sence of confusion about one's own sexuality.
because let's face facts. There is no valid secular reason to deny gays Equality of Marriage.
To each hisor her own in beliefs is what I say. To thnik that laws can control peoples beliefs is crazy. Its not all christian that voted in that califonia vote either.
Considering the religious make-up of California?
Plus factoring in the tens of millions spent by religious organizations in the "Gathering Storm" propeganda campaign?
The idea that more than only a very few "non-Christians" voted for Prop 8 is a strawman introduced in an attempt to deviate from one simple fact.
Prop 8 is based purely on religious doctrine, and should be struck down as Constitutionally Illegal.
We are a Constitutional Republic for a reason. Our Founders sought to guard against any Tyranny of the Majority where Equality and Freedoms were concerned. Where those two noble concepts are concerned, laws are NOT open to the democratic process. Any and all laws created simply MUST pass the Constitutional Litmus Test.
The SCOTUS noted in Loving vs Virginia that marriage was a basic Civil Right.
There is simply no valid secular reason to deny homosexuals the Civil Right to enjoy the same government institution that we heteroes enjoy, ie marriage. No, religion does not own title to tthe term or practice, and never has in this Nation.
The current resistance to offering the basic Equality of Marriage to gays is based on two things. Religious doctrine and/or just plain "Ick".
The latter just doesn't make any sence when referencing laws, and religious doctrine introduced into US Secular Law is simply Constitutionally Illegal.
Do you have a right to state your opinions? Certainly, everyone has an inherent right in this nation to make themselves look like fools when they base those opinions purely on outdated, draconic mideival religious zealotry, peer pressure fearing friends and relatives might think you "less hetero" for standing up for basic Equality, or some inner sence of confusion about one's own sexuality.
because let's face facts. There is no valid secular reason to deny gays Equality of Marriage.
Preach to someone else about the constitution,
In my state, the last time the law was challenged before the Minnesota Supreme Court---------the court ruled that Minnesota's marriage law defining marriage as between one man and one woman does NOT violate anyone's civil rights.
Try a different arguement !
My views about sexual PERVERSION aren't intended to impress anyone.
It was a contradictory statement when gay men marched in protest, holding their gay lover's hand, demanding the govt spend more money and find a cure for AIDS.
Imagine if a group of smokers marched in protest, puffing on their cigarettes , and demanding a cure for lung cancer.
They would be ridiculed off the streets and told to change their behavior ( smoking)
First of all it is nea1, pay attention. Do the gays? Well for someone who says they are not anti gay ( cough cough) you sure don't speak well of them. And just because we are not bigots and discriminate based on what a person does in their love life does not make us Ultra liberals. If you thought that was an insult, it didn't work. I dont put political labels on everything.
I'm not that concerned if I spell your name wrong, Neal
In my state, the last time the law was challenged before the Minnesota Supreme Court---------the court ruled that Minnesota's marriage law defining marriage as between one man and one woman does NOT violate anyone's civil rights.
Try a different arguement !
My views about sexual PERVERSION aren't intended to impress anyone.
Try again!
"Preach about the Consitution"? I take it you dislike America as long as it doesn't fit into your world view.
Baker v. Nelson, the 1971 ruling you are speaking of, did NOT find that "denying marriage to gays didn't violate civil rights", but that it was a State issue and the US Constitution did not apply, a ruling later held up by SCOTUS, agreeing that it was, indeed, a State matter.
You Failed yet again.
Baker v. Nelson has also been rendered moot by those State Supreme Courts that HAVE ruled it unconstitutional to deny equal rights to gays for marriage.
And trust me, you're NOT impressing anyone. Bigots normally don't.
Why was AIDS running rampant thru the gay community of San Francisco and not the entire city ?
Yup, --anal sex is safe
The gay men in SanFrancisco should have worn gloves when they held their gay lover's hand ?
Because, sparky, at the time that HIV/AIDs was introduced into the United States, homosexuality was still an underground culture, driven there by draconian religions present here in the US who base their opinions on ancient, poorly written fantasy novels instead of reality.
HIV/AIDs was brought to the US, and first passed through, the underground drug community, passed along through needle use (not anal sex). From there it transferred to the homosexual community, where it was passed along by many means, not just "anal sex", which you seem so fixated on.
Thanks to religiously motivated IGNORANCE, HIV/AIDs then spread to the heterosexual community through not only sexual conduct, but blood transfusions, blood pathogen transfer in hospitals and jails, etc.
The transmission of the disease we can rest squarely on the shoulders of your religious culture in this Nation, every innocent child that dies of AIDs died because of the purposeful ignorance you people wallow in.
BTW, globally speaking, gays are a tiny minority of infected people. Do yourself a favor and do some research on the subject. The internets, not just for porn anymore.
It was a contradictory statement when gay men marched in protest, holding their gay lover's hand, demanding the govt spend more money and find a cure for AIDS.
Imagine if a group of smokers marched in protest, puffing on their cigarettes , and demanding a cure for lung cancer.
They would be ridiculed off the streets and told to change their behavior ( smoking)
DOUBLE STANDARD !
Remember, you share the blame for every child who dies of AIDs.
"Preach about the Consitution"? I take it you dislike America as long as it doesn't fit into your world view.
Baker v. Nelson, the 1971 ruling you are speaking of, did NOT find that "denying marriage to gays didn't violate civil rights", but that it was a State issue and the US Constitution did not apply, a ruling later held up by SCOTUS, agreeing that it was, indeed, a State matter.
You Failed yet again.
Baker v. Nelson has also been rendered moot by those State Supreme Courts that HAVE ruled it unconstitutional to deny equal rights to gays for marriage.
And trust me, you're NOT impressing anyone. Bigots normally don't.
WRONG ( again)Axis.
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota's marriage law does NOT violate anyone's civil rights.
They then appealed it to the United States Supreme Court on hopes it would get overturned. it didn't happen !
The 2 idiots then tried filing Federal Income tax as a married couple.
it wasn't accepted
Quite the pair,those 2 !
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.
