The GOP shift on gay marriage continues....

[timpage]

I suspect I'm treading into territory that you're not equipped to deal with but....

What if a state passed a law that said black people couldn't vote. Would you be OK with that?

What if a state passed a law that said only black people could vote? Would you be OK with that?

What if a state passed a law that said only people that owned property could vote? Would you be OK with that?

What if a state passed a law that said nobody could own a gun? Would you be OK with that?

Get my point? Basic civil rights under the Constitution aren't subject to local state laws...because of the Constitution.

All that having been said. Tell me why you oppose allowing gays to get married? Why is it any skin off your dumb ass? Why do you care? Why can't gays be allowed to marry, and love each other, and be entitled to the same rights that heterosexual couples are entitled to? All the gay people I know are just like everybody else....trying to get along, make a living, ensure their financial rights, working and getting along like everybody else. What's the fucking problem? Other than you being a prejudiced, hateful idiot who lacks the understanding to accept people who have a different viewpoint than your own?

Originally Posted by acp5762

This is how stupid your ass is. The Federal Government shouldn't entertain social issues like Gay Marriages. Thats up to individual States to make that call. Gays by the way are treated like everyone else. If to allow them to get married completes their lives then so be it.

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by acp5762

The Federal Government shouldn't entertain social issues like Gay Marriages. Thats up to individual States to make that call.

Exactly like the Constitution says.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Exactly like the Constitution says.

So....give me the libertarian answers to the questions I posed. I love the fact that every single one of you self-professed libertarians is a white, middle-class or better male. Not that anyone else matters, of course. Bullshit.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Really? Here, on THIS particular board, you are concerned about having to share the definition of marriage with gays? Will that somehow demean marriage in your eyes?

Please don't make me spell this one out for you.

+1 darlin!

what a bunch of pathetic hypocrites!

Say what you want about politics, but NOBODY here is here to convert johns and hookers to the straight and narrow ... Well, almost nobody!

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by timpage

I suspect I'm treading into territory that you're not equipped to deal with but....

What if a state passed a law that said black people couldn't vote. Would you be OK with that?

What if a state passed a law that said only black people could vote? Would you be OK with that?

What if a state passed a law that said only people that owned property could vote? Would you be OK with that?

What if a state passed a law that said nobody could own a gun? Would you be OK with that?

Get my point? Basic civil rights under the Constitution aren't subject to local state laws...because of the Constitution.

All that having been said. Tell me why you oppose allowing gays to get married? Why is it any skin off your dumb ass? Why do you care? Why can't gays be allowed to marry, and love each other, and be entitled to the same rights that heterosexual couples are entitled to? All the gay people I know are just like everybody else....trying to get along, make a living, ensure their financial rights, working and getting along like everybody else. What's the fucking problem? Other than you being a prejudiced, hateful idiot who lacks the understanding to accept people who have a different viewpoint than your own?

I support gay rights, but your first set of examples (blacks, property owners, guns) aren't helpful. They are already settled law.

They are addressed in the Bill of Rights, which has been made applicable to the states (not just Congress), and are covered by the 14th & 15th Amendments.

Until very recently, the subject of marriage between two people of the same sex was never even thought of as being a fundamental right that would be protected under the Constitution. States had complete control over that body of law.

[acp5762]

Originally Posted by timpage

I suspect I'm treading into territory that you're not equipped to deal with but....

What if a state passed a law that said black people couldn't vote. Would you be OK with that?

What if a state passed a law that said only black people could vote? Would you be OK with that?

What if a state passed a law that said only people that owned property could vote? Would you be OK with that?

What if a state passed a law that said nobody could own a gun? Would you be OK with that?

Get my point? Basic civil rights under the Constitution aren't subject to local state laws...because of the Constitution.

All that having been said. Tell me why you oppose allowing gays to get married? Why is it any skin off your dumb ass? Why do you care? Why can't gays be allowed to marry, and love each other, and be entitled to the same rights that heterosexual couples are entitled to? All the gay people I know are just like everybody else....trying to get along, make a living, ensure their financial rights, working and getting along like everybody else. What's the fucking problem? Other than you being a prejudiced, hateful idiot who lacks the understanding to accept people who have a different viewpoint than your own?

You absolutly have no idea what you're even talking about. Where are you getting the idea that I have some deep seeded issue with Gays getting Married? It doesn't make any difference to me either way. I'll tell ya something else, Iam far from predjudice. It's quite ironic the ones that gripe the most about predjudice in this forum are the most predjudice.

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by timpage

So....give me the libertarian answers to the questions I posed. I love the fact that every single one of you self-professed libertarians is a white, middle-class or better male. Not that anyone else matters, of course. Bullshit.

Oh you were actually asking me questions....I see. Well OK

Originally Posted by timpage

I suspect I'm treading into territory that you're not equipped to deal with but....
You would suspect very wrong

What if a state passed a law that said black people couldn't vote. Would you be OK with that? No, but irrelevant. See US Constitution Amendment 1 and 15

What if a state passed a law that said only black people could vote? Would you be OK with that? Same as #1

What if a state passed a law that said only people that owned property could vote? Would you be OK with that? Interesting question. No probably not.

What if a state passed a law that said nobody could own a gun? Would you be OK with that? No. See Us Constitution Amendment #2
A state can pass whatever the hell law they want, but it will have to stand up to court scrutiny. The above examples above would never make it out of a state supreme court, let alone get to the US SC

Get my point? Basic civil rights under the Constitution aren't subject to local state laws...because of the Constitution.

All that having been said. Tell me why you oppose allowing gays to get married? Why is it any skin off your dumb ass? Why do you care? Why can't gays be allowed to marry, and love each other, and be entitled to the same rights that heterosexual couples are entitled to? All the gay people I know are just like everybody else....trying to get along, make a living, ensure their financial rights, working and getting along like everybody else. What's the fucking problem? Other than you being a prejudiced, hateful idiot who lacks the understanding to accept people who have a different viewpoint than your own?

Why would I care if gays married or not? Why would you think I would to begin with? Them doing so has absolutely no infringement on my life liberty or happiness. They should be afforded exactly the same rights and privileges as a man and women being married.

[CuteOldGuy]

What business is it of government to interfere with anyone's right to marry? The main purpose of marriage is to simplify the transfer of property on death. There are civil documents which can accomplish the same thing. Let the state deal with inheritance, and the churches, or individuals, deal with marriage.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by timpage

So....give me the libertarian answers to the questions I posed. I love the fact that every single one of you self-professed libertarians is a white, middle-class or better male. Not that anyone else matters, of course. Bullshit.

Pssst.....I'm more Libertarian than Republican. Wanna come check the private parts to verify that they are of the girly variety??

[Jewish Lawyer]

You are too stupid and arrogant to see it any way but your own way. I'm perfectly willing for you faggots to have the same rights as a married couple (which I fail to see as any big deal - if anything, marriage is a trap and very expensive to get out of) but just don't call it marriage. You will have the same fucking rights, you won't be denied shit (maybe you will get more of that on your dick, though) just call it something else, because it isn't marriage, fuckwad.
Timmy boy, suck dicks to your hearts content - I said I don't care if you let some guy stick his dick in your ass either, then suck on it. Have fun with that. Lick that boner Randy4Candy has all you like.
I do not care - just call it what it is when you marry your boyfriend - a gay union.

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by acp5762

This is how stupid your ass is. The Federal Government shouldn't entertain social issues like Gay Marriages. Thats up to individual States to make that call. Gays by the way are treated like everyone else. If to allow them to get married completes their lives then so be it.

Gays aren't treated like everyone else. Up until relatively recently DADT was the official policy of our military. As far as I know, the Equal Protection Clause still hasn't been extended fully to cover discrimination against people based upon their sexual orientation as well (lawyers in the group, please confirm/deny the case law on this one?).

The marriage part is also a big deal due to the benefits our government conferrs upon married couples that non-married couples don't get such as tax incentives, the ability to make medical decisions for their partner in the case of emergencies, etc.

So while I'm glad we agree that they should be able to be married and conferred the same rights as heterosexual couples (and it does seem that most members voicing their opinion here are in agreement), it comes with quite a few benefits they're missing.

Originally Posted by CJohnny54

Agree... until children can be produce that way.... union with right of marry people

So should women who are too old to have children be barred from marriage? How about sterile individuals? People who have been in accidents that can no longer have children?

If the ability to have children is your only qualifier for the right to marriage then you should also believe all of the above should not have the right to marry.

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

You are too stupid and arrogant to see it any way but your own way. I'm perfectly willing for you faggots to have the same rights as a married couple (which I fail to see as any big deal - if anything, marriage is a trap and very expensive to get out of) but just don't call it marriage. You will have the same fucking rights, you won't be denied shit (maybe you will get more of that on your dick, though) just call it something else, because it isn't marriage, fuckwad.
Timmy boy, suck dicks to your hearts content - I said I don't care if you let some guy stick his dick in your ass either, then suck on it. Have fun with that. Lick that boner Randy4Candy has all you like.
I do not care - just call it what it is when you marry your boyfriend - a gay union.

While I can understand your objection to using the term marriage for a homosexual marriage (or whatever other term you'd like to use), I would just like to point out that not too long ago in our country, interracial couples were just as taboo as homosexual couples are currently. There were many objections to interracial couples being granted the right to marry, but I think A) the institution of marriage hasn't been harmed by it and B) our society has benefitted from it.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

While I can understand your objection to using the term marriage for a homosexual marriage (or whatever other term you'd like to use), I would just like to point out that not too long ago in our country, interracial couples were just as taboo as homosexual couples are currently. There were many objections to interracial couples being granted the right to marry, but I think A) the institution of marriage hasn't been harmed by it and B) our society has benefitted from it.

1. The institution of marriage is in shambles.
2. I believe interracial couples were much more accepted, albeit on a relative scale. Society could always understand why a black man would want a white woman, or a white man want a black woman (I certainly love black women) but couldn't conceive a man wanting to have another stick his dick in another man's mouth or ass, much less the catcher enjoying a dick in his ass, then kissing another man.

[chefnerd]

It seems to me that the biggest opposition is by the group that a pastor/rector (depending on your preference) that I have known for many years, and now an Episcopal Bishop in a somewhat conservative area, called WERFs. That would be
Wild
Eyed
Religious
Fanatics
for all those who have no idea what I am referring to here.
The taking over of the conservative arena, especially the Republican Party, was forewarned by none other than Mister Conservative, Barry Goldwater, although some of the WERFs would probably call him a RINO.
"There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?"
Perhaps some of these folks are trying to discretely move away from the fanatics.

[timpage]

Actually, I wasn't...but since you've decided to butt in...and want to talk about the Constitution.... Maybe you ought to take a look at Loving v. Virginia decided back 50 years ago. You know, back when negroes couldn't marry white people. Here's a quote for you:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Now, substitute gay discrimination for racial discrimination and maybe you can clue in why the Constitution was drafted to allow all Americans to marry any other American they deem fit....regardless of your preconceived prejudices....whether they are based on race....or gender. I'll send you the citation if you want to learn something. Let me know.

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Oh you were actually asking me questions....I see. Well OK



Why would I care if gays married or not? Why would you think I would to begin with? Them doing so has absolutely no infringement on my life liberty or happiness. They should be afforded exactly the same rights and privileges as a man and women being married.