Forum Thread

Gay Marriage Bans Are Getting Struck Down, state by state by state


Reply to ThreadDisplaying 31 - 45 of 47 Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    conservativecat Wrote: In Arkansas you have to meet the age requirements as set by the law, no different than the Constitutional amendment we passed as another definition of requirements (male and female only) Both apply equally and fairly to everyone. I couldn't marry when I was 16, my kids can't, my cousins can't, nobody can. Its a requirement - not a discrimination.

    I can't marry my son, my father, my best friend (same sex) ..... neither can any other male in Arkansas and that's not discrimination either, its applicable equally and fairly to everyone.

    How is telling two consenting adults that they shouldn't be able to marry the person they love not discrimination?

    This is what just frustrates me about so called small government Donald supporters. They want the government out of their lives unless it has to do with telling other people how they should live theirs.

    Again - no one is forcing you to get gay married! If you don't want to marry your best male friend then don't. But why in the world do you think you have the right to tell someone else that they can't marry their best friend just because you think it's gross?

    And please stop it with the red herrings. This discussion is about gay marriage; not whether you and your dad should be able to get married.

    conservativecat Wrote: See what I mean?

    No.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    How is telling two consenting adults that they shouldn't be able to marry the person they love not discrimination?

    sigh ... again, is that what you are going to hold to? If it is, then you HAVE to also allow polygamy and incest. If that your stance? As long as its 2 consenting adults nothing else matters, right ? why in the world do you think you have the right to tell someone else that they can't marry just because you think it's gross?

    Its NOT discrimination when its applied to everyone equally and fairly. Is it age discrimination to say a 17 year old can't buy a gun? No it isn't because its applied to ALL 17 years old. see ?

    Again - no one is forcing you to get gay married! If you don't want to marry your best male friend then don't. But why in the world do you think you have the right to tell someone else that they can't marry their best friend just because you think it's gross?

    I agree - nobody is forcing anyone - rules are rules, laws and laws, requirements to get licenses are requirements to get licenses.

    I have changed my mine on gay marriages in the past couple of years. Its a state license, states can decided who can get them and with what requirements - doesn't matter to me

    And please stop it with the red herrings. This discussion is about gay marriage; not whether you and your dad should be able to get married.

    because you see the problem - you might think incest and polygamy is nasty, so you're ok with keeping it illegal right?

    its very hard, I get it .......... but marriage licenses have requirements. Age limitations, no polygamy, no incest, have to be residents .... all those things and more are NOT discrimination, they're applied equally and fairly to everyone. Same sex is another requirement is all, it is no different. I know it - you know it.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    conservativecat Wrote:

    How is telling two consenting adults that they shouldn't be able to marry the person they love not discrimination?

    sigh ... again, is that what you are going to hold to? If it is, then you HAVE to also allow polygamy and incest. If that your stance? As long as its 2 consenting adults nothing else matters, right ? why in the world do you think you have the right to tell someone else that they can't marry just because you think it's gross?

    Its NOT discrimination when its applied to everyone equally and fairly. Is it age discrimination to say a 17 year old can't buy a gun? No it isn't because its applied to ALL 17 years old. see ?

    I genuinely don't care if an adult decides they want to marry their mom or dad. It affects my life in no way whatsoever.

    I also genuinely don't care if a man marries ten women or a woman marries ten men. If everyone in either group enters into that relationship on their own free will then who am I to judge? Again - it doesn't affect my life in any way.

    And I'm so tired of the red herrings. Saying gay people shouldn't be able to marry because people can't legally drink before they are 21 or can't buy a gun before a certain age has literally nothing to do with whether or not two consenting adults should be able to get married.

    conservativecat Wrote:

    Again - no one is forcing you to get gay married! If you don't want to marry your best male friend then don't. But why in the world do you think you have the right to tell someone else that they can't marry their best friend just because you think it's gross?

    I agree - nobody is forcing anyone - rules are rules, laws and laws, requirements to get licenses are requirements to get licenses.

    I have changed my mine on gay marriages in the past couple of years. Its a state license, states can decided who can get them and with what requirements - doesn't matter to me

    Thank the God I don't believe in that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

    conservativecat Wrote:

    And please stop it with the red herrings. This discussion is about gay marriage; not whether you and your dad should be able to get married.

    because you see the problem - you might think incest and polygamy is nasty, so you're ok with keeping it illegal right?

    its very hard, I get it .......... but marriage licenses have requirements. Age limitations, no polygamy, no incest, have to be residents .... all those things and more are NOT discrimination, they're applied equally and fairly to everyone. Same sex is another requirement is all, it is no different. I know it - you know it.

    As I said above - I genuinely don't care who someone marries so long as they are doing so on their own free will.

    And no, I don't know it. Comparing age requirements to gender requirements is a red herring. A thirteen year old can't give consent; a grown ass man can.

    I just can't wrap my head around why you feel you have the right to tell someone else who they can or can't spend the rest of their lives with.

    Why does Adam's decision to marry Steve get your panties up in such a bunch? Does their decision to love each other affect your life so deeply that you feel your only option is to tell them that they don't have the same rights as you?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I genuinely don't care if an adult decides they want to marry their mom or dad. It affects my life in no way whatsoever.

    I also genuinely don't care if a man marries ten women or a woman marries ten men.

    me either - so we both agree on that

    you think the Fed Govt should decide who should get State issued licenses, not the State .... I think the States should decide themselves. That's where we differe

    BTW Why do you suppose the SC didn't give marriage equality to everyone?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    conservativecat Wrote: you think the Fed Govt should decide who should get State issued licenses, not the State .... I think the States should decide themselves. That's where we differe

    Please don't put words in my mouth and please don't selectively edit my posts to make it seem like I said something I did not.

    I consider marriage a fundamental human right. No state or locality should be able to tell two (or more) consenting adults who they can or can't love. Our Federal Government shouldn't be able to either.

    Southern states - including your own - used to have laws on the books that explicitly said black people can't live, pee, drink, eat, or get educated in the same place as white people. Your states also hung black people for sport and ensured that all white juries let any murderer off the hook.

    It took the Supreme Court to step in and teach you how to be decent human beings. (Although I must say that you segregationists didn't make it easy.)

    Making sure Adam has the right to marry Steve is no different. Your state had discriminatory laws. The Supreme Court called bullshit. And now you are forced to be decent human beings once again. I guess the silver lining is that the National Guard hasn't had to be called in to force it on you this time around.

    conservativecat Wrote: BTW Why do you suppose the SC didn't give marriage equality to everyone?

    Because I understand how the judiciary system works.

    Marriage equality for everyone wasn't on the docket. Same sex marriage bans were.

    If polygamy and incest bans reach the Supreme Court then I'll be just as big of a cheerleader as I am now. I just don't understand why anyone feels they have the right to tell other consenting adults how they should live their lives.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I consider marriage a fundamental human right. No state or locality should be able to tell two (or more) consenting adults who they can or can't love. Our Federal Government shouldn't be able to either.

    A license issued by a State is a right and should be controlled by the Govt on who can and can't get those licenses ?

    Again, it seems you want the Fed Govt to decide the rules and requirements of a state issues licensed - I do not, I believe that's a State's issue (since they're the one issuing it)

    If polygamy and incest bans reach the Supreme Court then I'll be just as big of a cheerleader as I am now.

    I would be against the SC ruling on that - its a States issue. Nowhere in our Constitution do I see a right to get a marriage license nor do I see the Federal Govt issuing Fed marriage licenses.

    You know the reason for marriage licenses right? In large part to keep inter racial marriages from happening. Back to the good old Jim Crow days.

    I'm actually against marriage licenses period. Civil Union licenses issued by States (or Fed Govt) for tax purposes etc. Marriages are church things, should have never been combined. So much for separation of church and state when they're intertwined so deeply huh ?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    conservativecat Wrote: A license issued by a State is a right and should be controlled by the Govt on who can and can't get those licenses ?Again, it seems you want the Fed Govt to decide the rules and requirements of a state issues licensed - I do not, I believe that's a State's issue (since they're the one issuing it)

    As I have previously said - sometimes a state needs to be overruled by a higher power when their citizens pass discriminatory laws. Arkansas doesn't have the best track record in that regard.

    Do you still advocate for Jim Crow laws or have you accepted that black people should be able to shit in the same bathroom as white people? We know the answer to that question if your "great" state of Arkansas was able to have their way.

    conservativecat Wrote: I would be against the SC ruling on that - its a States issue. Nowhere in our Constitution do I see a right to get a marriage license nor do I see the Federal Govt issuing Fed marriage licenses.

    Someone needs to dust off their copy of the Constitution...

    Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    Amendment XIV, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

    conservativecat Wrote: You know the reason for marriage licenses right? In large part to keep inter racial marriages from happening. Back to the good old Jim Crow days.

    Not true. Marriage licenses have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years.

    conservativecat Wrote: I'm actually against marriage licenses period. Civil Union licenses issued by States (or Fed Govt) for tax purposes etc. Marriages are church things, should have never been combined. So much for separation of church and state when they're intertwined so deeply huh ?

    Marriages used to be a transaction between two families that had absolutely nothing to do with religion. It had more to do with property rights and to keep a families bloodline going than worshiping a fanciful creature in the sky.

    Christians, as they did with countless other things, hijacked marriage and made it about themselves by formally defining marriage as a relationship with God in the 12th Century.

    Now that we have the history of marriage out of the way, it is important to understand what marriage has become today. My wife and I are both atheists, yet we still got married because we wanted to share the remainder of our lives together. I have many atheist friends who have done the same. Marriage is a religious thing for religious people, but it is something entirely different to non-religious people.


  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    "I have a few gay friends" ! Where have we heard that BS line before???
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    pr where do you know me from? oh that's right ... you don't

    States started issuing marriage licenses to stop inter racial marriages - that's US history many want to forget, the good 'ol Jim Crow type Democrats from the early 1900's

    True, marriages go back in history, mostly as a means to having women as possessions and property. I agree - marriage licenses are no more religious that a hunting or drivers license is.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    conservativecat Wrote: States started issuing marriage licenses to stop inter racial marriages - that's US history many want to forget, the good 'ol Jim Crow type Democrats from the early 1900's

    As your hero Donald likes to say - WRONG!

    Marriage licenses have been around for hundreds of years and long before the United States was even a republic. They didn't just pop up out of nowhere during the Jim Crow era.

    Regardless, what marriage licenses turned into after the Jim Crow era was a tool to prevent two adults who loved each other from getting married because they happened to be of the same sex. I understand you like to blame the old Democratic Party for your blind hatred of two men who love each other, but the Democratic Party has actually grown and changed while the Republican Party accepted all of you old southern Dixiecrat's with open arms.

    And please don't post another fake news or tabloid site as your "source" to back up whatever your next nonsensical claim happens to be. Fact checking all of your nonsense is taking up too much of my time.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I think you spend more time editing my posts to make them less valid than you do typing your thoughts - wow

    google marriage licenses and anyone can find pretty quickly that around 1900 States started issuing them to stop blacks from marrying into whites. Its something Democrats don't want to acknowledge .... like Jim Crow and Robery Byrd being Democrats to the core, like Republicans pushing and passing civil rights laws while Democrats fought them every step of the way.

    Google is your friend

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    conservativecat Wrote: I think you spend more time editing my posts to make them less valid than you do typing your thoughts - wow

    Editing would require me to rewrite what you wrote. That is something I have never done.

    conservativecat Wrote: google marriage licenses and anyone can find pretty quickly that around 1900 States started issuing them to stop blacks from marrying into whites. Its something Democrats don't want to acknowledge .... like Jim Crow and Robery Byrd being Democrats to the core, like Republicans pushing and passing civil rights laws while Democrats fought them every step of the way.

    I do more than "google things." I actually read peer reviewed articles to get a better understanding of very complex issues.

    As I have pointed out to you on many occasions by now - google is your friend because google will tell you want you want to hear. I actually seek out facts and not just what I want to hear. I encourage you to do the same for once.


    I spent the past weekend in Vancouver, B.C. with my wife visiting our (try to throw up now - gay!) friends who just got engaged.

    You know what I found so awesome about the trip other than the great food and company? No one gives a shit who you love in Canada. It's just accepted that two adults who love each other can marry.

    I had conflicting emotions because I was so happy for them, but so sad that we are still having this fight in our country where religious zealots and hate mongers feel they have the right to tell people they have never met who they can or can't spend the rest of their lives with. It really makes me sick when I think about it.

    My wife snapped me out of my funk when she reminded me that your side lost. And you lost bigly. Get over it. If you don't want to marry a guy then don't, but you have no right to tell two consenting adults that they can't.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    You're wasting your time even responding to this clown, Jared! Don't forget he is a conservative and their two favorite words are "I" and "mine". That's all they ever think about. Sad but that's how they are - not even intelligent enough to know how bad they make themselves look to others or why.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    pr can you read? If you can, look back and you'll find I said I'm all for gays having ability to get marriage licenses.

    States rights lost but remember the beautiful thing about judicial rulings .... they can be reversed. When the will of the people is circumvented by a judicial rulings, things can always come back around. What if the SC ruled on Roe again and reversed it. Your side would simply have to deal with it - bigly time. Same thing too if the SC rules that States can dictate bathroom laws as well as marriage license laws etc. Can't happen? Sure .... keep telling yourself that.

    If it wasn't for judicial rules, gays couldn't ever have gotten gay marriage passed, the public simply doesn't want it.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    conservativecat Wrote: States rights lost but remember the beautiful thing about judicial rulings .... they can be reversed. When the will of the people is circumvented by a judicial rulings, things can always come back around. What if the SC ruled on Roe again and reversed it. Your side would simply have to deal with it - bigly time. Same thing too if the SC rules that States can dictate bathroom laws as well as marriage license laws etc. Can't happen? Sure .... keep telling yourself that.

    Yea, but Stare decisis has done us well for the most part if you take Plessy v. Ferguson out of the picture.

    I will encourage you once again to read our Constitution. You might learn something new for once.

    conservativecat Wrote:If it wasn't for judicial rules, gays couldn't ever have gotten gay marriage passed, the public simply doesn't want it.

    And if it wasn't for judicial rules [sic] blacks couldn't marry a white person and your "great" state of Arkansas would still force black people to shit in a different bathroom.

    Do you think that black people should have to shit in a different bathroom or are you ok with them shitting in the same bathroom as you now?