Official Thread: Federal judge rules California ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. (Ohio, assault)

[jaada]

Originally Posted by Wingsy

Actually,
this spells out pretty clearly just what the bible has to say about marriage.

And as an NDN, I'd assume you're familiar with twospirit identity theory, right?

yes wingsy i am familiar with it, our tribe didnt believe that. that was the plains ndns that did. are you ndn?

[MsMcQ LV]

Originally Posted by betamanlet

I wonder if a liberal can even admit that a gay couple cannot procreate. That two people of the same sex cannot produce a child,an dif they use some kind of scientific intervention, the child will still only biologically be related to one of the couple, not both.

I wonder if you could explain why this is even relevant?

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by jaada

holy crap i have so many people i am fighting off here i dont even know what the question is. so much for peaceful gay people, lol. i guess others are not allowed to disagree with gay people huh just like i stated earlier we are evil wrong and should just shut our mouths if we dont agree, you would think that since gays say they have been discrimminated against and had to keep thier opinions to theirselves for so long they would not want to force others to be quiet, as they know how it feels to not be able to share thier views. hummm

First off you seem to be trying to make the assumption that i'm gay. i'm not, I'm just not a bigot.

Secondly, the question is why would someone presiding over this case being Gay be any different than someone in an inter-racial relationship presiding over Loving V Virginia or a woman presiding over a case dealing with equality for women, etc....

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

And with this disclaimer at the bottom of the page

Maggie Gallagher is the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage.

just what the hell would you expect this bimbo to say?

How does that change the posting? She's the chairman for a marriage organization discussing a legal issue on marriage..

[jaada]

Originally Posted by Wingsy

Don't actually read much, do you? You do realize that the people you're arguing with are actually heterosexual and/or in heterosexual marriages, right?

you would be amazed at how much i have read in my life and what i have read in my life-lol yes i know that i am argueing against straight people.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Wingsy

Pursuit of happiness may not be in there, but life & liberty certainly are.

Neither life nor liberty is being denied..

[jaada]

Originally Posted by Smash255

First off you seem to be trying to make the assumption that i'm gay. i'm not, I'm just not a bigot.

Secondly, the question is why would someone presiding over this case being Gay be any different than someone in an inter-racial relationship presiding over Loving V Virginia or a woman presiding over a case dealing with equality for women, etc....

im not a bigot either just because i dont agree gays should be married. i do agree they should have protections just as married couples do. i am not against gay people nor do i hate them.

[Johnny C]

States can vote for laws and govern themselves outside of the Federal Government. States cannot, however, vote for laws that violate the Constitution.

This is the core of the entire argument, and is also where most of us are forced to make a choice. The 14th Amendment has been used to uphold the rights of people who have been part of a group that is viewed as being a “status”, such as African Americans, Women, ect. Being part of a group considered to be a “status” means that you really didn’t have a choice to be lumped in that group that is being denied Constitutional rights.

The ultimate question for us (and ultimately the Supreme Court) is, “does being a homosexual mean you are part of a status, or part of a choice of conduct?”

If being gay means that you are part of a status, then you had no choice in becoming part of the status and thus have rights as part of that status that are protected by the Constitution under “equal protection”.

If you believe that being gay is a choice, then you would have a much weaker argument that your choice deserves “equal protection” under the Constitution.

It really will come down to this simple, yet difficult decision.

Answer #1 – It is not a choice to be gay – you are born that way and your Constitutional rights of equal protection / due process are being violated because you can’t get married like everyone else.

Answer #2 – You make the choice to be gay, and thus have chosen not to exercise your Constitutional rights of equal protection / due process. You could get married like everyone else, but choose to be gay.

That is what it will come down to – like it or not.

Good discussion!

[Wingsy]

Originally Posted by pghquest

They needed better lawyers.. Try again..

Did you look through the list?
Many of them are
1) Items which shouldnt exist for straight couples either
2) Are state responsibilities..
3) Are indeed rights they enjoy.. Family Violence Prevention and Services for example. Individuals are protected by domestic abuse laws regardless of married or not..

Nice little list, but its totally flawed..

Flawed how? The fact remains, married couples do receive these benefits. As long as that is the case, those benefits need to be equally available. They're not.

And while your "they needed better lawyers" response is a nice, flippant dismissal, it's just that - a dismissal. There are hundreds of examples of similar cases where, if the couple had been heterosexual and thus able to be married, there would have been no issue to begin with.

I suspect that no matter what is presented to you, you will find a way to dismiss it no matter the relevance, because it does not fit in with your own stance. That makes debate with you an utter waste of time. *shrugs*

[Wingsy]

Originally Posted by jaada

oh but according to wingy you are gay, or at least have homo tendancies.

That kind of belies your assertion that you do, in fact, read.

Hint: I wasn't the one who made that assertion.