quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

Reading is fundamental folks.

I've stated a few times in this thread that the gay lobby needs to get a Constitutional Amendment in order to insure maximum protection of gay marriage. Perhaps if some of you get that through your heads, you'll figure out WHY I'm telling you this fight is going to continue. But ignorant liberals will be ignorant liberals, so I MUST be a bigot and a homophobe for pointing out why this will continue.

Frankly, since I'm straight, it won't effect me at all when the gay lobby gets their asses handed to them because they don't have what it takes to settle the issue once and for all in their favor. In the final analysis, it won't affect my personal well being one iota if gays get to marry each other or not. So, if this is what you all want to consider a victory it's really of no consequence to me. If the gay lobby lacks the resolve to do the job properly when it's in their best interest, it's not my lookout.

After all, if doing the job half-assed is good enough for gays, it might as well be good enough for me too, right?

-SD-

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

The will of some of the people does not superceedt he constitution.

Sweet. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution. They were very pro gay marriage and anti-voting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

if this is what you all want to consider a victory

No one I know considers the DOMA/Prop. 8 decisions a total victory. My fellow members of the "gay lobby" and I are keenly aware that there are plenty more mountains to climb. Most states, after all, do not allow same-sex marriage, and the court didn't resolve the "full faith and credit" issue of marriages legal in one state but not recognized in another. Then there's the minor matter of states in which sexual orientation is an acceptable basis for employment discrimination.

But ...

For those of us who grew up having to hide our true selves, wondering if we were sick or depraved and hoping that people a century or so hence might dwell in a fairer world, this is a moment to celebrate. As one of my favorite hymns puts it:

Yet with a steady beat, have not our weary feet,
Come to the place for which our [forebears] sighed?

And then, yes, it's time to get back to work.

quote:

I've stated a few times in this thread that the gay lobby needs to get a Constitutional Amendment in order to insure maximum protection of gay marriage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


Jerry Brown fucked up royally, he thought he was being pro gay rights by not defending prop 8. He should have done that, given it a half assed effort, because it is likely that the Scotus by a 5-4 would have declared Prop 8 a violation of the 14th amendment, which would be binding on all 50 states, by letting the anti same sex marriage people go to court, who didn't have standing, they ducked the issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
The Court's other ruling bound the feds and all 50 states to follow the full faith and credit reciprocity of marriage licenses from every other state.

Read the decisions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

The will of some of the people does not superceedt he constitution.

Sweet. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution. They were very pro gay marriage and anti-voting.

No, the founding fathers were not pro gay marriage, they also weren't pro subsidized electric power, they didn't enumerate the right to an attorney, they didn't think of a lot of things. See, the founding fathers were not a hydrocephalic moron like Sean Hannity, they knew the constitution couldn't cover everything, because they knew the country was going to stay 13 sparsely settled colonies using horse drawn carriages. What they realized is the country would grow and change, and they put flexibility into the laws, they built a Supreme Court into the constitution to interpret the constitution in light of societal changes. There is a reason the founders made amending the constitution so difficult, it is that they expected that both legislatures and the courts would handle issues, they didn't want a situation like California where any whack job can amend the constitution, they wanted the constitution to remain what it was meant to be, the framework to run the government and protect our rights. Other than prohibition, most amendments tend to enhance rights, not take them away (well, unless you are one of those people who dream of the confederacy and think the 13 amendment took away all the fun), but it also is reserved for major issues. Once same sex marriage is settled, that will be it, because even though the GOP will bluster, ma and pa frickert from Alabama will yell and roll on the ground and rant and rave, the fact is that soon enough states will make it legal that the only practical step will be to have states forced to recognize it, otherwise you could see a kind of civil war, states that recognize same sex marriage can refuse to recognize marriage from states without it, it will be a nightmare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas


Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\

This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution.

So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas


Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\

This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution.

So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas


Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\

This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution.

So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point.

Too bad you didn't bother to read that part about the Declaration of Independence declaring that "All men are created equal".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Pure nonsense. What is literally spelled out in the exact wording of the Constitution is equal government treatment for *all*, absent a compelling reason.

What is spelled out in the exact wording of Art III is that when the Supreme Court says that inter-racial/interfaith/same sex marriage is a right, it is a right.


Maybe you can find another forum where people will actually fall for that drivel. I'm sure the FBI has a list.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas


Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\

This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution.

So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point.

quote:

What is literally spelled out in the exact wording of the Constitution is equal government treatment for *all*, absent a compelling reason.

quote:

What is spelled out in the exact wording of Art III is that when the Supreme Court says that inter-racial/interfaith/same sex marriage is a right, it is a right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\

This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution.

So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point.

quote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\

This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution.

So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point.

I think a lot of the Founders would object to the above statement. The Bill of Rights is meant to delineate certain rights but not to limit what rights the people had.

They even put in a nifty amendment to basically tell folks not to make the claim you just made.
The Ninth Amendment to the United states Constitution

quote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas



Sweet. Based on your view of this document, this meant that you can eat the same candy I can or lift the same weight or have the same beautiful submissive I have by law. Sweet but no dice, instead, it meant the end of the King of England's rule over the thirteen Colonies and the ability for Americans in the new colonies to decide their own fate and form their own Government which then would make a Constitution, the law of the land.. As a legal document the Declaration does not give or take away rights so, this is another case of making "rights" up.

No, it means that you and I have the same basic rights.
You know that part that says "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
If you look at the Constitution, there are significant portions concerned with under what circumstances these unalienable rights may or may not be withdrawn.

Please tell me that you're being deliberately obtuse because I really didn't believe it was possible for anyone to have that lack of reading comprehension.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
The Court's other ruling bound the feds and all 50 states to follow the full faith and credit reciprocity of marriage licenses from every other state.

Read the decisions.

No. It did not. Only section 3 of DOMA was struck down. Section 2, which is the state recognition part, still stands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOMA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Sweet. What was that about "made up shit doesnt count" ?