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.
I happen to support ssm though I'm not gay. My support doesn't mean I must think of non-supporters as bigoted, ignorant homophobes. I recognize that many people believe as their lives have taught them--- marriage Means woman and man. Perhaps if I were gay I'd be less tolerant of those who oppose ssm.
well i agree that people were taught these things, unfortunately they were taught something that is bigotry. just like how many people were taught that blacks were inferior. it doesn't make it OK because they were taught that. i do consider people who are against gay civil marriage as being bigotted because it impacts peoples lives and denies them the freedom that the person with that belief enjoys.
also, i don't think it matters what they think in a sense because i'm already guaranteed ssm via the fact that the constitution guarantees equal rights for all and it's not to be up to how someone thinks about it.
well i agree that people were taught these things, unfortunately they were taught something that is bigotry. just like how many people were taught that blacks were inferior. it doesn't make it OK because they were taught that. i do consider people who are against gay civil marriage as being bigotted because it impacts peoples lives and denies them the freedom that the person with that belief enjoys.
also, i don't think it matters what they think in a sense because i'm already guaranteed ssm via the fact that the constitution guarantees equal rights for all and it's not to be up to how someone thinks about it.
Predictably, the comparison with blacks. I know you feel opponents of ssm are bigots. I think some are, many aren't.
You can ignore or not care about what opponents to ssm think. The legal reality is you're not guaranteed ssm via the constitution. Unless I missed an overnight court decision, your right to marry is limited to a handful of states.
Predictably, the comparison with blacks. I know you feel opponents of ssm are bigots. I think some are, many aren't.
The comparison with blacks is valid, even Martin Luther and Coretta Scott King agreed with that.
Quote:
You can ignore or not care about what opponents to ssm think. The legal reality is you're not guaranteed ssm via the constitution. Unless I missed an overnight court decision, your right to marry is limited to a handful of states.
I think he was speaking on principle. There is not a single valid legal argument to deny gays the right to marry in this country. So just because it hasn't been decided by the SCOTUS yet, does not mean it isn't already unconstitutional to not allow it.
If you don't like same-sex marriage then don't have one. Live and let live. If someone loves someone and wants to get married then let them. "With liberty and justice for all." ALL means everyone.
The comparison with blacks is valid, even Martin Luther and Coretta Scott King agreed with that.
I think he was speaking on principle. There is not a single valid legal argument to deny gays the right to marry in this country. So just because it hasn't been decided by the SCOTUS yet, does not mean it isn't already unconstitutional to not allow it.
I disagree with mlk and csk.
Courts have split on whether ssm is constitutionally protected. For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said --- We hold that § 29 and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States.
You'll reject rulings you don't like. The bans are real in all but 6 or 7 states and will remain in force for a long time.
Courts have split on whether ssm is constitutionally protected. For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said --- We hold that § 29 and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States.
You'll reject rulings you don't like. The bans are real in all but 6 or 7 states and will remain in force for a long time.
Well, for another year and a half, at least-- for most of the 44, anyway.
Courts have split on whether ssm is constitutionally protected. For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said --- We hold that § 29 and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States.
You'll reject rulings you don't like. The bans are real in all but 6 or 7 states and will remain in force for a long time.
As for your claim that bans on ssm are unconstitutional even though not decided by the SCOTUS yet... nonsense, ridiculous, absurd, and I'll add another nonsense.
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.
If you don't like it...don't do it.
