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've seen fake and confused people who thought they were gay but weren't in my life. But I've never seen a black man who was really white but just confused. So much for your stupid analogy.
Stop comparing behavior to a person's race.
Just because someone is gay does not mean they are "confused." And no, it is not a "stupid analogy" just because you don't like the similarities.
And what is wrong with that analogy, it is true. Interracial marriages were banned and it was the court sytem that made it legal, not popular consensus. At the time of Loving verses Virginia, over 70% of US citizens were adamently against interracial marriage. You think that if the government had not made it legal, that it would still be banned in a number of states?
To answer your question, just because the Constitution was **** on previously doesn`t mean ****ing on it again is the right thing to do.
There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes any court to rewrite or nullify any law, but doing so has become the means by which niche interest groups now routinely overrule the expressed will of the people.
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
The Constitution was intended by its creators to be amended by the people as circumstances and events created the need.
Of course that may require working to change hearts and minds when others don`t agree with you, but that`s really not a problem in this case.
Today, with popular support for same-sex marriage at an all-time high and no real reason to not pursue the remedy provided by the Founders, those who advocate same-sex marriage aren`t even talking about a Constitutional amendment even though that would completely settle the matter.
This means that you don`t respect the Constitution or the political process that protects my rights from a government that makes a habit of assuming powers.
I've seen fake and confused people who thought they were gay but weren't in my life. But I've never seen a black man who was really white but just confused. So much for your stupid analogy.
Stop comparing behavior to a person's race.
Sex and sexual orientation are not behavior. Is your being heterosexual a behavior, or is it just the sexual orientation of homosexuals that is a behavior?
To answer your question, just because the Constitution was **** on previously doesn`t mean ****ing on it again is the right thing to do.
There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes any court to rewrite or nullify any law, but doing so has become the means by which niche interest groups now routinely overrule the expressed will of the people.
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
The Constitution was intended by its creators to be amended by the people as circumstances and events created the need.
Of course that may require working to change hearts and minds when others don`t agree with you, but that`s really not a problem in this case.
Today, with popular support for same-sex marriage at an all-time high and no real reason to not pursue the remedy provided by the Founders, those who advocate same-sex marriage aren`t even talking about a Constitutional amendment even though that would completely settle the matter.
This means that you don`t respect the Constitution or the political process that protects my rights from a government that makes a habit of assuming powers.
So does this mean you are fine with same sex marriage being legal for those that wish to have a same sex marriage?
So does this mean you are fine with same sex marriage being legal for those that wish to have a same sex marriage?
All depends on how we get there.
I personally oppose same-sex marriage, but if the people speak on the issue either through their representatives or by direct referendum, then the people will have settled the matter.
Kennedy said as much when the court upheld Michigan`s ban on Affirmative Action.
I personally oppose same-sex marriage, but if the people speak on the issue either through their representatives or by direct referendum, then the people will have settled the matter.
Since when did the public majority decide the rights of the minority? The courts were designed to protect the minority so that their rights couldn't be taken away or denied by the majority.
Should we put every right up to a vote to make sure it is what the majority wants? Our country was not designed that way.
If you need permission (LICENSE) - it is not a RIGHT.
If you have a right, you do not need permission.
There is such a thing as common law marriage, which does not require government permission to contract. (It does require the parties to have common law standing - but that's outside the scope of this reply).
There is no such thing as a common law gay marriage.
The simple reason is that throughout history, marriage (two party, three party, etc) was for the joining of property rights for the benefit of progeny. Once gay couples (or triples) gene splice progeny, then by all means MARRY property rights. Until then, gay marriage is like training wheels for fish.
If partners want to endow each other with property, a will is superior to a marriage contract.
Under curtesy and dower, the deceased's blood relatives will have a superior claim over the surviving "spouse."
If you need permission (LICENSE) - it is not a RIGHT.
If you have a right, you do not need permission.
There is such a thing as common law marriage, which does not require government permission to contract. (It does require the parties to have common law standing - but that's outside the scope of this reply).
There is no such thing as a common law gay marriage.
The simple reason is that throughout history, marriage (two party, three party, etc) was for the joining of property rights for the benefit of progeny. Once gay couples (or triples) gene splice progeny, then by all means MARRY property rights. Until then, gay marriage is like training wheels for fish.
If partners want to endow each other with property, a will is superior to a marriage contract.
Under curtesy and dower, the deceased's blood relatives will have a superior claim over the surviving "spouse."
I do not consider my being with my partner for 36 years training wheels and your callling same sex marriage that is an insult. Marriage is not about progeny, nor are any of those 1049 rights that come with marriage. A couple that has no children has just as valid of a marriage as one with children. A will is not superior to a marriage contract, it does not avoid the inheritance tax as marriage does.
If you need permission (LICENSE) - it is not a RIGHT.
If you have a right, you do not need permission.
There is such a thing as common law marriage, which does not require government permission to contract. (It does require the parties to have common law standing - but that's outside the scope of this reply).
There is no such thing as a common law gay marriage.
The simple reason is that throughout history, marriage (two party, three party, etc) was for the joining of property rights for the benefit of progeny. Once gay couples (or triples) gene splice progeny, then by all means MARRY property rights. Until then, gay marriage is like training wheels for fish.
If partners want to endow each other with property, a will is superior to a marriage contract.
Under curtesy and dower, the deceased's blood relatives will have a superior claim over the surviving "spouse."
The only permission needed to marry is between the two people wanting to marry each other. All a marriage license is is a legally binding document between two people. The state doesn't decide who can ans cannot marry, like you seem to be suggesting.
Though, nothing prevents you from not getting a Civil Marriage and just declaring yourself and another person to be married, provided the other person is aware you wish to marry them and they too wish to marry you.
If a man wants to marry another man, a horse, or a palm tree it is no business of mine.
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.
