Maverick <justgopublic@sbcglobal.com> wrote:

"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gvxt0q.1s943nn6mzx6aN%usenet@mile23.c0m...

Maverick <justgopublic@sbcglobal.com> wrote:

"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gvxqob.1fhznrbkeczmlN%usenet@mile23.c0m...

Maverick <justgopublic@sbcglobal.com> wrote:

[..]

Maybe 5% of Americans want same sex marriage.

You might consider asking yourself whether public opinion

miscegenation when anti-miscegenation laws were ruled

in 1964.

That tells me it just ain't gonna' happen on a national level

two

reasons. Homosexuality is not a "race" of people and marriage

are

based on "gender" and not "orientation" and thus have no basis

being tossed out by some phony Supreme Court edict that would

precipitate a Constitutional Amendment.

So you believe that the constitutional rights to due process and

protection are 'phony?' The Founders wrote them into the

On

July 4th this year, you'll hear all about it.

So, do you believe that the 14th Amendment was an action by the

Court?

As evidenced by what I said above: No. I don't. Why do you ask?

Because you answered my post in such a manner as to imply you were
responding to this:
"being tossed out by some phony Supreme Court edict"

Right. And you said that a ruling against DOMA-style laws would be
tossed out based on some phony Supreme Court edict.

It's well-understood that if same-sex marriage laws are a constitutional
issue, they fall under the umbrella of equal protection and due process,
which are not 'phony edicts.'

So saying they *are* is *your* mistake, not mine.

The homosexual community should press it's agenda on a state by

state

basis and take their victories where they find them, otherwise,

are going to be shut out completely when they cajole enough

into a Constitutional Amendment making marriage nothing but the
joining of one "unrelated, mature male" and one "unrelated,

female". When it comes right down to it, that's probably what

want anyhow so they can continue their pathetic victimhood

continuously clamoring for sympathy.

Is that your version of 'conservatism?' Amending the constitution

some people don't have rights?

I don't really care whether it is conservative, liberal or jewish or
catholic or what? And yes, I do believe the states retained the

restrict certain rights by the power to grant license. You do not

the

right to move to another state today and run for its' Governor

Imagine, not having that right. Isn't that un-Constitutional?

Again, I'd point you back to the ruling against anti-micegenation laws
in 1964. If states' laws are unreasonable in their discrimination,

they should be overturned. That's how America works. It's the beauty

our system.

What you are arguing above is a strawman. My point is that gay people
have a right to equal protection and due process, just like everybody
else.

Why, they don't act like everybody else.

So then you hate America, you despise the US Constitution, and you'd
***** down Ben Franklin's throat if you could. Simple as that. You don't
like gays, so you don't believe they should have constitutional rights.

And, let me ask you, have you ever read the Supreme Court cases that
describe exactly what the 14th Amendment was all about?

So you don't want to address my point. That's fine, since my point is
that your argument is contrary to the spirit of liberty and freedom
which the US Constitution embodies.

And an amendment to the Constitution to prevent them from having

rights is not only unAmerican, it's radical and bigoted.

That's the same thing the pedophiles and NAMBLA are saying. So what? We

all radical and bigoted in some form or another.

People who aren't pedophiles say that, too.

If you *are* bigoted, then you *are* bigoted. And you're bigoted. You
believe gays shouldn't have constitutional rights, simply because
they're gay. You said so yourself.

In some political-establishment-versus the-common-people

the courts have performed wonderful, courageous service to

the principles of democracy against rogue legislatures and

executives. However, when the contest takes the form of

whether the courts themselves get to establish a judicial

as public policy, the record is not so encouraging. Courts have

often abandoned the independence of judicial neutrality and

like

any other self-interested political power in order to establish

their

pet positions as the law of the land. --- Lynn D. Wardle,

of

law

Bush v. Gore 2000 was a good example of this. What does it have to

with same-sex marriage, though?

Bush v. Gore is a prime example of "judicial activism" and if you

followed anything I have posted you would know that I am adamately

against

it in any form, by either side of the political spectrum at any

Your

attempt to pigeon hole me into some political niche is duly noted,

your failure to do so.

I wasn't trying to pidgeon-hole you with my statement about Bush/Gore,
but I seem to have struck a nerve.

I have no political bent what so ever.

Other than opposing the licensing of same-sex marriage and a desire to
remove rights to due process and equal protection from same-sex

who seek justice, of course. Beyond *those* things, no political

*whatsoever.*

I don't consider those political.

Then you're not very smart.

Those are legal and Constitutional matters, not political matters.

the problem with society today, they can not tell the difference.
Everything is political now days. I do not buy into that.

I take each issue one at a time and apply my own personal beliefs to
them and could care less who that offends, impresses or concerns. I

lean heavily toward the "original intent" theory in regards to the

Constitution though.

Then surely you see that unreasonable discrimination in the licensing

marriages is a constitutional issue.

So, please explain to us old traditional types what is unreasonable in
wanting to adhere to the laws of nature and the original concept of
"marriage AND procreation" being a civil right fundamental to our

There's nothing unreasonable about wanting that. What's unreasonable is
that there is no *rational* justification for *denying* marriage
licenses to same-sex partners.

And what is unreasonable in allowing the individual states to determine
their own destiny as proscribed by the Constitution we operate under.

Nothing, as long as the states' laws aren't judged unconstitutional. As
anti-same-sex marriage laws will inevitably be.

And please explain where in the world "reason" comes into play in when

is such a subjective element that any 9 people could come up with 10
different descriptions of it.

You're hanging around with the wrong ten people, son. Is it reasonable
that there should be limits on which race your spouse can be? Of course
not. That's why anti-miscegenation laws were overturned.

So what's the reasonable justification for denying licenses to same-sex
partners?

And last but not least, explain to us why is has now, after over 200
years, become unreasonable to confine marriage to one man and one woman

a time.

You'll have to ask the activists who are proposing and passing DOMA-type
laws. They're the ones who have changed things after 200+ years. Why is
it necessary to amend the US Constitution to define marriage? That's a
pretty radical change.

--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.

Maverick: <<explain to us why is has now,
after over 200 years, become unreasonable to confine marriage to one
man and
one woman at a time.
Why did it take over 170 years for a state SC to strike down racial
marriage laws?