Gay Marriage going to the USSC...for what could be the last time

It matters with regards to your fallacious claim.

Gee, that really makes me "sad" considering how I've always supported legal protections and accommodations through domestic partnerships. Ever since gays have moved their goal posts, however, I care considerably less. And your opinions and evaluations make me care even less still!

 

If not being able to procreate is not grounds for denying marriage licenses, then stop bringing up not being able to procreate as an argument against same-sex marriage licenses. Children in same-sex families do not suffer from the lack of a father or mother figure. They do just fine.

What is absurd about your argument is that you would allow an alcoholic opposite-sex couple to get married and have children, despite them being horrible parents and hardly constituting father or mother figures, but you would deny a perfectly loving same-sex couple from getting married simply because they are of the same sex.

 

What moral grounds? And were you proposing no governmental regulation of marriage back when same sex marriage wasn't being debated?

 

No you don't. Tell me, before same sex couples insisted on equal treatment, how long were you fighting to get "government out of marriage"?

The fact is, that argument NEVER came up until same sex couples started fighting for their rights.

 

Likely for the same reason that cons are

 

Wow! Thanks for your enlightenment. That clears everything up!

And I'm sorry you are so ignorant of America and it's constitution. There is no "right" to marry therefor no one's rights are being voted away.
There is no equal right to an institution that is by definition a one man/one woman affair.

 

It's a sad day in America.....when voters of the states don't count. Pretty soon.....they can then prevent voters from voting against laws on the age of consent for youngsters to have sex.....for the age that youngsters can get married.....whether polygamy will be allowed and legal......whether someone can drink and drive or smoke pot and drive.

Sad, sad, sad......

 

I'm a Christian. I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. It's a commitment they make before God and community, not government.
Wasn't into politics till about 10 years ago, so I didn't have an opinion on the matter back then. But in 06(I think it was 06) when my state passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage I voted against it.

 

The Jim Crow laws had to do with race. I didn't realize that gays were a race. You seem to think so but I have news: it isn't. It isn't that people support gays as much as they just don't care. People still view homosexuality as a perverted thing that people do. It is like a seemingly victimless crime.

Again, most people just don't care. The Duck Dynasty victory is a victory for free speech.

 

So you're a mind reader?

 

Sorry there JP, but illegal drug use, polygamy, and child molestation are bad, and have negative consequences for all in involved

Being gay is not bad.

 

I never have. Someone explained why traditional marriage was considered "natural" marriage and you took exception to that. Get your story straight.

I would not allow them marriage because by being "married" they have completely corrupted what marriage is to the extent that now any arrangement can claim a right to marriage.
That's why I have always supported domestic partnerships which accommodate children and families just as well....how "evil" and "hateful" of me.

 

Priceless..........

 

"Same sex marriage"...that is better. I am glad that some are getting away from the gay rights myth. There is no such thing. There is no inequality there is just a struggle to legalize something: same sex marriage. Why libs feel like they need to make it about more than that seems silly to me.

 

Where it does not exist, there is, by definition, inequality.

Don't argue with me using labels. If this were a thread about firearms, you'd think I was a rabid conservative. If it were about religion, theists mostly see me as an atheist, and atheists see me as a theist. I defy labels and think for myself.

 

Actually you are wrong. People who were once against same-sex marriage are now in favor of it. Is this really news to you?

In May 2008, 54% of Californians supported prop 8, with only 35% against it. Other polls had people supporting same-sex marriage by a slim margin of around 4%. The measure to ban SSM passed 52% to 48%. What is the landscape like now? 58% of Californians support same-sex marriage. Only 36% are against it. The tables have totally turned. In 2008, Californians were against same-sex marriage by a margin ranging from 4-19%. Now Californians favor same-sex marriage by an even greater margin of 22%.

Popularity does not matter when it comes to the legality of same-sex marriage. If stripping away constitutional rights is popular, there is still no right of voters to do so. The point is to simply highlight the dramatic change in public opinion and that California voters would be far more likely to vote for same-sex marriage if given the chance. That is undeniable.

 

You deny public opinion has shifted dramatically on same-sex marriage? Good luck proving that.

 

Why does that matter? Gays are still going to live where they live. Screw who they're screwing. Love who they love. and so on.

I don't believe all the resistance to gay marriage has anything to do with a marriage license collecting dust in the skinny middle drawer of the desk in a gay couple's upstairs study.

I keep saying....there are three reasons some oppose gay marriage.

1. The bible says so.
2. Their side of the political spectrum is against it.
3. Men kissing makes them feel icky

All other reasons given are lies, or denial

 

All marriage should be legal. Separation of church and state. Your beliefs don't matter.

 

The role of the courts are to defend the rights of the minority against the majority on issues of Constitutional rights this includes the state and Federal level constitutions. Segregation and Jim Crow also used to be legal until the courts stepped in and quite rightly to.

 

I'm not the one trying to prove something. You claim public support is behind gay marriage so it shouldn't be a problem to win the vote instead of using the courts.

 

I asked you a question and then stated a fact. One more time, how long were you fighting to get "government out of marriage" before same sex couples started demanding their rights?

 

Inequality under the law for gays is a myth. BTW so is the tooth fairy....sorry to bust your bubble.

You seem more like a liberal in sheep's clothing but that is just a guess.

 

So you have given us the Goldwater approved reasons why people are against gays....thanks for the list. What is the definition of bigotry?

 

The obvious implication was that only "natural" marriages should be legal. Please. I've seen this procreation argument enough times to know the conclusion.

Same-sex marriages in no way corrupt what marriage is. Your marriage is not effected in any way whatsoever. Granting marriage licenses to opposite sex couples and then granting a licensethat does the exact same thing for same-sex couples with a different name is redundant and serves no purpose other than to demean and diminish the dignity of same-sex couples.