National Guard Not Welcome At San Francisco LGBT Pride Weekend. But Manning is

The Supreme Court properly punted because Marriage is defined by the State, you know States Rights, which is usually a dog whistle for the libs, except when they agree.

 

Its not that deep of a point you are making but go ahead.

Which of course it is not since a man can marry right now. Its who they can marry is the issue which is not gender discrimination any more than a man marrying a boy is not gender discrimination.

Ah so now that the point has been busted on gender you want to throw in a new requirement. Age. Sorry, that wasn't part of your original claim. Try again.

And as I just pointed out you can't keep adding in new requirements once your argument has been busted.

And I understand when you've been busted you have to keep changing the requirements to stay ahead but don't think you are going to get away with it.

And since you can't prove all children who consent to marrying adults are raped there goes another unsupported theory.

Its simply the right thing to do if the child has a gender abnormality. Are you saying you don't care about the children?

Yes I believe in all that pesky science you find so reprehensible.

The answer is painfully simple. They aren't women. They need psychological help and why should we support new laws forcing people to accept someone who can change their minds whenever they like?

That is the reality you just can't accept. This is a choice be it conscious or unconscious it is and always will be a choice you want to enforce laws around which is the very height of lunacy.

 

Of course you are since you believe without proof that homosexuality is natural or genetic. That is the very definition of religion. Don't make me quote the dictionary again.

Every time you and your side try to equate race to homosexuality you are pretending homosexuality is genetic as race is. Your activist judges claim that its protected by the Equal Protection clause written over 150 years ago which never even contemplated homosexuality to get around the fact they know they don't have the votes for an amendment. Their dishonesty is easy to spot and point out.

 

But did not rule on gay marriage or prop 8. Your false inference is noted. Their latest rulings show they will rule against gay marriage being forced on a state by activist judges.

Wrong again. It is the responsibility of a judge to consider the consequences when they decide to expand current law which is why SCOTUS will end this lunacy and restore the people's right to vote.

 

Which is evidence of nothing. The site you're quoting from lays out some of the arguments from both sides on this issue, but you chose to quote only the side that agrees with you, and then pretend that this is somehow evidence that a compelling state interest exists to deny marriage recognition to same-sex couples, based on subjective morality.

Laughable, at best. Citing other people's opinions isn't evidence of anything apart from the fact that they have an opinion. I think you should go look up "compelling state interest" to understand what that really means in the context of the law. It doesn't mean an opinion that you personally find persuasive.

 

Appeal to tradition

Appeal to the mob

(Look it up if you don't know what that means)

 

Not exactly. The Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that the states could not define marriage along racially discriminatory lines. States control marriage only insofar as their marriage definitions do not violate the federal Constitution.

 

Great, another person who thinks they know something about the law, revealing that they don't.

Here's how it went down:

- The district court (a federal court) issued a ruling overturning Prop 8.
- Those who had standing to file an appeal of that ruling on behalf of the state refused to do so.
- Proponents of the amendment attempted to assert their standing to defend the law, and made an appeal to the 9th Circuit.
- The 9th Circuit asked the opinion of the California Supreme Court on the standing issue, and accepted that appellants had standing.
- The 9th Circuit upheld the district court's ruling, overturning Prop 8.
- Proponents of the amendment attempted an appeal of the Circuit court's ruling to the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court granted cert, and heard the appeal. But it refused to rule on the merits of the case.

So, why did the Supreme Court refuse to rule on the merits of the case? It wasn't because "states define marriage" or "states rights", as you put it. Where on earth did you ever get the idea that this was the Court's reason for punting the case?

The Supreme Court refused to rule on the merits of the case because they disagreed with the 9th Circuit's finding that the amendment's proponents had the legal standing to appeal the district court's ruling.

What action did the Supreme Court take? Well, they sure as heck didn't put the state's marriage ban back into force. They vacated the 9th Circuit's ruling, with instructions for that court to dismiss the appeal for appellants' lack of standing to bring it.

Do you know what happens when an appeals court dismisses an appeal? In this case, it means the district court's ruling overturning the state's marriage ban stands with the force of law.

So "states rights" my ass. People who know nothing about the law or the specifics of a court's ruling really shouldn't pretend that they do.

 

Because I never made the argument that homosexualitynismgenetic or that race is not. You made it up and attributed it to me. That is the definition of a strawman.

Once again you fail to read the definition of the word you used.

.
Correct. You made a false statement and attributed that statement to me.

And another strawman.
We'll wait.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol.....

 

Wow.....that is some wishful thinking- no wonder you smelled fear as you sat at your computer terminal.

And you are of course wrong about each thing you have said there also.

The 'people's right to vote' doesn't extend to unconstitutional laws.

If the voters of California voted to legalize slavery, the federal courts would overturn that because it was unconstitutional- you would call that 'taking away the people's right to vote"

 

I feel sad for you Tex.

You want the world to discriminate against homosexuals, and that discrimination is tumbling down all around you.

Meanwhile- I am for equality in marriage for consenting adults- you are not.

It is painfully obvious that you believe that voters trump the Constitution- I on the other hand believe in the Consitution.

But Tex- you said a judge can't over rule the voters will.

In California- that is settled law. In California, prohibiting same gender marriage is as unconstitutional as slavery is- and the voters cannot vote in either unconstitutional act.

 

The only thing unconstitutional about it was Federal, not State. DOMA did not allow the Federal government to recognized the laws that States had passed for purposes of Federal laws, effectively barring them from receiving federal marriage benefits..

 

Irrelevant. I was referencing Loving v. Virginia not the DOMA case (U.S. v. Windsor).

 

Yet the Supreme Court has never taken this up because it is a State issue just the same. Redefining marriage is not the same as not allowing couples to marry due to race.

 

Yes it is. Not being allowed to marry someone based solely on their gender is gender discrimination.

You're the one bringing up the issue of age, which is an entire red herring and strawman in itself. But thank you, I will know now not to address it anymore when you bring it up since it is off-topic.

What is the right thing? Allowing them to choose their own gender ideintity no matter their age? Yes I totally approve of that. Glad to see you do too.

Unsupported claim.

You are right, they do, so let them get it. Also I don't know what law is out there that can change your mind on anything or control any way you THINK. If the tin foil hat is not working for you, maybe try something else?

Another unsupported claim.

I apologize for my confusion then. You seemed opposed to it considering the multiple men who live daily as women which you also seem to find nothing wrong with, yet you oppose and name-call certain others who choose to live this way. It just seems odd to me.

My apologies. Like I said, it just seemed strongly implied based on your views towards AIS men and trans people.

Nobody is forcing you to accept anything. You are free to live your life as you wish and completely ignore those whom you despise if you wish. Who is stopping you from doing so?

 

Actually rahl you did. You compared race to homosexuality when they have nothing in common. Your words:

This argument didn't work for interracial bans either.

Try to remember your own arguments next time.

Once again yes you did when you equated race which is a proven genetic trait and the statement that race is geneitc is a factual statement.

Race being genetic is a factual statement once again Rahl. You fail to prove otherwise hence no strawman. Please also learn the definition of a strawman. They require a false statement not one you think doesn't apply to you and race being genetic is not a false statement.

Try again.

 

Yeah. It helps when you read the court's decisions Jeff.

Let me simplify it for you. SCOTUS ruled that a company's religious objections to contraceptives is legal which means a people's religious objections to other personal choices like gay marriage will also be a right of the people.

The clock is ticking

BTW, ready to tell us who your PM pal is feeding you your own arguments?

Fabricating unconstitutional claims without any evidence in the Constitution to either referring to or mentioning homosexuals anywhere in the Constitution to support yourself isn't helping your case Jeff.

See oince again Jeff you didn't read what I wrote or what is in the Constitution. Slavery is abolished by the 13th amendment. Your precious gay marriage isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Homosexuals are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Do you understand the difference?

 

Wrong again. Both genders can marry right now.

Sigh. I see you are going to have to be reminded of your own words. You brought up age of consent first. I quote

I'm sorry but how is a consenting adult marrying an unconsenting minor in any way shape or form the same as two or more consenting adults marrying?

I'll accept your apology any time.

Absolutely as long as they are listed as they should be under the disabilities act because a gender abnormality is definitely a disability.

You brought up the science and now you claim its unsupported? LOL Classic.

Psychological help? Absolutely!

I know its hard but you really need to read carefully. Laws can force acceptance. The 2 bakeries and one photographer not including the Mozilla CEO being fired for his thoughts.

I thought you were more versed on the subject. I apologize for that assumption.

Please please try to read more carefully. I have no problem with a genetic test that reveals an abnormality that would classify someone as being disabled.

You still haven't answered the question about the rest of the 95% of the cross dressing freaks who have no genetic disability.

Read. A genetic test reveals a genetic abnormality which is a disability. Your inability to deal with the other 95% is the focus.

People like you who make laws forcing acceptance of these freaks on private businesses. That's who.

 

Yes I want to have the ability to discriminate with people making personal choices and the freedom we enjoy as Americans. I can honestly and proudly admit that.

Your inability to admit you wish to discriminate against other forms of marriage you don't approve of is quite telling.

First you claimed you didn't discriminate and when I disproved that laughable claim you added consenting adults to your requirement hoping it wouldn't be noticed you changed your own argument. So sad you can't even admit it.

Show us anywhere in the Constitution that discusses gay marriage or homosexuality. Go ahead Jeff. Quote it.

See unlike you I can quote the Constitution where slavery is specifically banned.

either slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

See Jeff, that's quoting the Constitution to specifically justify my argument with the actual wording used to support my argument.

Unlike yourself where you have to fabricate a hidden meaning in the words of the Constitution never conceived nor designed by the men who wrote it.

But Jeff I said an amendment is the proper avenue for gay marriage since it requires no justification. Please keep up with my arguments when I make them to you.

 

Try to comprehend what you read next time, instead of creating strawmen. I grow tired of calling you on them.

Again, try comprehending what you read, instead of creating strawmen.

.
I never said race wasn't a genetic trait, hence your strawman.

My claiming race isn't genetic is the strawman, lol.

Try what? I'm embarrassing you tex. I don't need to try

 

Unless the person they want to marry is the same gender as them. Therefore that is gender discrimination.

http://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/state_cases091004.pdf

No, you are claiming I said something I did not.

Clearly they did not force acceptance though. These people did not accept it and while the result was that they lost their jobs and businesses they stood by their moral beliefs and did not accept it.

By the way, I do not condone people who drag businesses off to court over such things thus resulting in the shutting down of the business. I do however approve of boycotting to make change.

Also as far as Mozilla goes, as a privately owned company their main interest is profit and money. As it currently stands being a bigot openly doesn't make much money (depending though, as I believe Chick-Fil-A made quite the profit by having it's CEO state his bigoted moral views.)

It's all a matter of choice here. If you have signed a contract stating you will not openly make controversial statements that would be bad for the company you work for and you breech your contract you may lose your job. If you have signed no such contract then you may speak as you wish as we have seen with the CEO of Chick-Fil-A. If you break the law as it currently stands as well and certain consumer protection acts in your state then you may be sued for it. So I would very well say, know your laws before opening a business and expecting to only cater to a certain group of people while openly refusing service to another, it may be illegal to do so.

I am just as new to this subject as you are and I have actually learned quite a few things I did not know before. That's just one of the main reasons I enjoy debating. If I want to win an argument I have to research it, pretty thoroughly in fact and I learn a lot.

I already have. If one must live by the chromosomal gender they were born with the only way to be 100% sure is by testing their genetics. That's how we deal with it, that is, if it needs dealing with at all. Of course the other option is just allowing people to choose their gender identity and living by it if they choose to.

You mean like your inability to focus on gender discrimination in marriage and so must bring up and argue child marriages instead?

There are already laws in place to protect people, to purchase and sell on certain properties. If you dislike those laws then perhaps you should advocate or argue against them. Or you can create a private club in which only certain persons are allowed in. You can do that you know. But if you are open to the public, that means everyone, even those icky people you don't like. It sucks, I know, but that's life. Those laws aren't just there to protect the icky people either, but people like you and me.

 

Marriage is not simply a state issue. States cannot define marriage as between two members of the same race, due to SCOTUS redefining the marriage license in Loving v. Virginia. Furthermore, the federal government confers benefits onto married couples and treats them differently for taxation purposes. Anyone who says marriage is purely a state issue is out of touch with reality and judicial precedent.

 

DOMA signified that it is a State issue. That is why I brought it up earlier. States define marriage. That is why you are seeing it change State by State.

 

States define marriage within the guidelines set by the Constitution. Again, if marriage were simply a state issue, a state would have the right to define marriage as between two people of the same race. Guess what? They can't. Furthermore, every single federal court that has ruled on same-sex marriage since U.S. v. Windsor has held that states do not have a right to define marriage to exclude gay couples.

You have nothing more than an assertion, and that assertion is completely destroyed by the counter evidence. Marriage is not merely a state issue. Period.

 

LOL- well that is one interpretation- whacky as all get out but it is an interpretation. SCOTUS ruled that the government could not force a company to fund contraception coverage- the court found in favor of the religious rights of individuals over government regulations. IF that is relevant to gay marriage, that is only a good thing for gay marriage- because the courts are finding in favor of the marriage rights of individuals over government regulations.