Can opponents of gay marriage give a single way that it interferes in their lives?

that you seek to avoid your fair share so everyone else has to pay more is better?

- - - Updated - - -

i've been saying that for years. 2 college roomies have more commitment than most married couples these days.

 

I think the only thing you'll find about marriage in the Constitution is "ensure domestic tranquility" in the preamble. Then there's the elastic clause giving Congress the authority to "make all laws necessary and proper" to enforce the other laws.
Someone mentioned the 14th amendment. When the liberal court of the 1960s and 1970s extended that to cover the states (defining birth control and later abortion as rights to privacy) they were overstepping their authority in ways far beyond the policy of judicial review instituted by john Marshall. Though most Americans got comfortable with judicial review after a while it is good to remember that the loudest voice in opposition to it was Thomas Jefferson. Andrew Jackson appointed Roger Taney as Chief justice with the understanding that he would dominate the court as fully as Marshall did, just seeing things his way (whereas Marshall did not). That led to the Dred Scott decision and the Civil War. While the battle between the court and presidents was often personal, the social engineering that began with FDR's eight appointees and a few later additions was an effort to reform US society so Congress didn't have to. The most radical of modern liberals have championed all kinds of fights hoping to see the court give minority interests rights they can't get in the traditional ways. This made the Republican Party strong while it was in full retreat. Republicans have never fully retaken the court, but at least it was safely in the hands of moderates like John Paul Stevens on the left and William Rehnquist on the right, giving few decisions to get upset about in either direction since 1990.
As long as Anthony Kennedy stands dead center, choosing not only the winner in almost every contested vote but the severity of the impact, the country is safe from judicial tyranny in either direction. He's 75 so these days of comfort are numbered.
With that in mind, lets consider the types of rights the Constitution definitely addresses: voting rights. The most obvious right the 14th Amendment could have been applied to was to let someone vote, yet women were not allowed to vote in most states for 50 years after the amendment was passed, and they got that right through another amendment, not a legal case. I think any legal challenge would have left the court no choice but to extend the franchise to women at any point during those years. Why didn't someone try? The Jim Crow laws also would have fallen as soon as they reached the federal bench, and they were the kind of laws that could have bypassed state courts.
Fighting for new rights is fun when it's your own rights you're fighting for, but you might hate the next set of rights that come up, and they should include polygamy, prostitution, drug pedaling and the elimination of the minimum wage.
Basically, liberal judges are looking for a chance to adjust society to how they think it should be. Conservatives consider the merits of each challenged law and endorse it no matter how it hurts society.
getting back to the OP: legalizing assisted suicide, LSD, polygamy, prostitution and wetlands destruction won't affect me either. Do you want them all legal?

 

But we would also have to extend those child based tax credits to all couples with a child, and not just ,married ones. But limit it to couples who live together.

- - - Updated - - -

But we would also have to extend those child based tax credits to all couples with a child, and not just ,married ones. But limit it to couples who live together.

 

Praise the lord that someone is making an attempt to get back to the OP.
........assisted suicide, LSD, polygamy, YES / wetlands destruction NO

- - - Updated - - -

Are you serious.....? You think that has something to do with marriage?? OMG

 

That's what domestic tranquility is, a man knows his one devoted wife will be at home when he gets there, keeping the children from destroying the house and preparing a meal sufficient to restore the body after his 16 hours of agonizing labor, while the government protects his property from foreign invaders and the local police from local burglars.
The first amendments go with that: he has a gun to protect him and religion is also protected, and if the government needs his horse, they'll leave him enough money for a new one.

 

Heh, I can assure you that Obamacare isn't going to fix having a year enrollment for insurance plans. Unless you leave your job or there are a couple specific circumstances, you are not going to be able to drop your employee benefits in the middle of the coverage year. Based on your fiance's complaint, it sounds like neither he nor you have a grasp as to what exactly insurance is.

Generally, employers pay a portion of health insurance, usually a half to three quarters. The amount your dad pays is probably not the full cost of his plan. So given that, the Catholic Church feels it has a grievance about being forced to pay for birth control or abortions or whatever it is; things that they oppose doctrinally. Their argument is that the First Amendment should protect them from having to pay for things their religion opposes. Particularly when so many Catholic institutions self insure, meaning they pay the full cost and just uses the insurance company to administer the plan.

 

Nobody extended the 14th amendment to apply to states. The 14th amendment has always applied to states. Here is the text of the amendment:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The controversy you are talking about deals with implicit rights and the incorporation doctrine. The courts ruled the right to privacy is an implied right in the bill of rights, found in penumbras within the amendments. The 14th amendment then incorporated those rights to the states. Whether or not that was a good idea is irrelevant, because I am saying the 14th amendment on its own is enough to make prohibiting marriage licenses to same-sex couples unconstitutional. The right I am defining is not implicit or found hidden among the amendments. It is the explicit 14th amendment right to equal protection of the laws, which is directed at State governments.

As to your argument about women: Someone did try, actually. Only 1 year after the 14th amendment passed, Myra Bradwell sued for equal protection as a woman. The court ruled against her. Since then, the court has changed its mind, and I agree with that change of mind. Jim crow laws were also challenged under the 14th amendment in the landmark case Plessy v. Ferguson. The court said such laws were constitutional. The court changed its mind and overruled Plessy in Brown v. Board.

Nobody is fighting for new rights. We are fighting for rights that we already have by nature of being human that our government refuses to recognize. All of your other listed issues are red herrings and irrelevant, so I wont address them.

 

Not the case, so you apparently don't have a valid argument to make.

 

I believe you are misinterpreting the phrase "to ensure the domestic tranquility" - it in no way refers to a domestic situation in the sense of a marriage or household, but rather refers to Domestic as "within the country" such as in Domestic or imported.

 

Equal became special when gay activists started demanding special rights, not equal rights, and the numbers seem to indicate many will receive “last rites,” not special rights, with more than 60% of U.S. AIDS cases and over 50% of syphilis and other STD cases coming from the gay arena.

Statistically gays live almost 24 years less >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

Based on your prior posts, you appear to be following a script - next you are going tell Phil you are heterosexual - which - if Phil knows his stuff - he'll call you a liar - In my Humble Opinion Mr. ProgressiveParrot sir - If it walks like a duck, smells like a duck and squawks like a duck - It's a Duck !

 

So you think that anyone who supports equal rights for same sex couples must be gay? Well then, most of the country must be gay as well:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ese-nine-charts-show-gay-marriage-is-winning/

You're not just losing, you have lost. So no matter what you think, you are on the wrong side of history.

Plus, all the statistics you cite are about gay men. What about lesbians? They have the lowest incidence of STDs. Should all women become lesbians?

 

I'm not discussing with you or anyone else "what I am" because 1) It's none of your business and 2) I could not care less what you think. If I'm going to care at all what about someone thinks of me, that someone will be a person that I have at the very least, a scintilla of respect for...and that is not you. I will say this though. Assuming that a defender of gay rights is themselves gay is beyond moronic and it tell me EVERYTHING that I need to know about you. >>>Insult removed<<<

 

I have asked many times in many ways of many people, "when did the quest for equality......for gays to have just what straights have....nothing more, nothing less become special rights? " The only thing that I ever get is this kind of stupidity....." because they want special rights" without ever explaining how they are in fact special. Until you do, you are on the loosing end of this discussion >>>Insult removed<<<

 

Equal Rights are fine - Privileges are not. As far as Gay Marriage goes - The Government has no business in the personal lives of its citizenry so long as there personal lives don't interfere with the lives and liberty of their fellow citizens. So IMHO - There's no reason two Homos. who choose to cohabitate and play house in imitation of normal people, should be prevented from doing so, as well - they should be afforded equal protection under the law.

Female Homosexuality and Male Homosexuality apparently are not the same Mental Disorder, that's my opinion - no studies available that I know of to back that up. They both involve same sex attraction or perversion as the case may be - but Dikes - statistically Lesbians appear to be healthier and better adjusted then their demented male counterparts.

As per the Gay Agenda - YES ! 'ALL WOMEN SHOULD BE LESBIANS"

Moral Indictment of the Girl Scouts

 

"Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks"

The quote from Michael Swift of the Boston Gay Community News was originally satirical in nature. Nonetheless, the remarks are terrifying and should give every sane person, whether gay or straight, reason to contemplate the real motives of homosexual activism.

progressiveparrot - I lack the time to go into this in depth at the moment , Iwill adress your Queery at a later time .

 

I rest my case/ Thanks for proving my point

 

You can't rest what you don't have. - A Case

The Gay Agenda demands passage of laws designed to accommodate their tastes and needs, not that of society at large.
Example
Masha Gessen, a journalist and author who campaigns for the Gay Agenda, made the statement that the gay agenda is not seeking equality but rather a total dismantling of the institution of marriage itself. In her comments at the Sydney Writer’s Festival. She said:

Her statements are in line with Gay Agenda which was outlined in After the Ball by Marshall Kirk

Gay activists claim they only seek acceptance and tolerance from mainstream society, but as per Marshall Kirk, a prophet of the Gay Agenda -

EXAMPLE 2

The Matthew Shepherd Act, which is to be reintroduced this month in the House of Representatives is touted a hate-crime legislation proposed to strengthen the protection against homosexual discrimination and queer bashing It seeks to stifle free speech of opponents to the Gay Agenda , anti gay comments and opinions that are verbalized will become Illegal.


Matthew Shepherd Act could prohibit extra-curricular groups from meeting in high schools and colleges. Equality? Absolutely not. Look what the Gay Agenda and the manipulative media attempted to do to the Boy Scouts - simply because they sought to protect their members from the onslaught of the perverted Agenda and pedophiliac Gays infiltrating their organization.

Look what happened to the Girl Scouts because they were thoroughly infiltrated and at the National level commandeered by Gays.

 

That explains it all !

 

None of us work for the Catholic Church, so this shouldn't be a problem.

I suppose if you work for the Catholic Church and you want abortions and birth control, then you might want to rethink your personal beliefs and pick a different religion.

 

Proposal: We liberals should abandon this stinking corps of a thread that has become dominated by religious right wing nuts, small government zealots, and hysterical, sexually repressed bigots and paranoid schizophrenics. They don't want to hear what we have say no matter how many times we say it. All they are capable of is inane rants and off topic trollingLet them feed on their own craziness and stew in their own juice as they spiral ever further down into the pit of despair and insanity.

 

Defending Gay "Rights" is one thing - becoming rabid and irrational, and basically foaming at the mouth when anyone dares to utter an anti gay agenda opinion is a horse of a different color. How many other 'ducks' are in that closet with you ? IMO - you not only have latent homosexual tendencies ...... your a Duck ... Quack, Quack.

You really are afraid of the Truth ... aren't you ? You can't handle the fact that yours is not the only opinions permitted to be disseminated ? I accept your surrender

 

Well they used to close threads after 50 pages. For some reason this one is still going.

 

So you will take the statement of one person as representing the views of the entire gay community? This in no way demonstrates that gays want special rights or privileges. I could easily unearth the rants of right wing bigots who think that gays should be locked away in nut houses or even killed.....you might actually believe that but don't have the guts to say so- but for me to use that as representing the entire straight community would be grossly unfair. That's the difference between you and I....integrety

 

This is a hate crimes law plain and simple. It will not in any way prohibit free speech. It will ensure that perpetrators of hate crimes get what they deserve. It no different that laws that protect other minorities

 

Prove it