| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
24 Apr 2006 10:43:19 PM |
| Object: |
Push for national gay-marriage ban |
How much more needs to be done to get the crazed LLL (Looney Liberal
Lemmings) to understand; Americans do not want same-sex marriage. Whatever
arguments can be made in favor of creating this right do not supercede the
fact that Americans overwhelmingly reject the notion. Imposing the will of a
few against the wishes of the masses amounts to no more than totalitarian
government; and afterall, isn't that what you 'liberals' so firmly oppose?
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/9139
WASHINGTON, April 24 (UPI) -- Roman Catholic leaders and evangelical
Protestants, joined by other religious groups, are pushing to amend the U.S.
Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
As a kickoff, the group signed a petition in support of an amendment, The
New York Times reported. Those who added their names included seven Catholic
cardinals, a number of archbishops, some Orthodox Jewish rabbis and at least
one official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
One Catholic group -- the Knights of Columbus -- plans to distribute 10
million postcards at Catholic churches for congregants to send to their
congressional representatives.
"The personal involvement of bishops and cardinals is significantly greater
this time than in 2004," said Patrick Korten, a spokesman for the lay
Catholic group.
In 2004, proposed amendments to state constitutions on homosexual marriage
helped bring out conservative voters and may have contributed to President
George W. Bush's victory over Sen.. John Kerry.
But some political observers say that the public attitude toward the issue
has shifted with a recent poll finding 51 percent of respondents opposed,
compared to 63 percent in 2004.
--
----------
J Young
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 08:10:34 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Johnny wrote:
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of singles
because
they are not married.
Except, of course, that laws passed by the states may not discriminate.
SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in concordance.
It's baffling how people state Constitutional law as if they are on the
SCOTUS. Both Johnny's and DanielSan's claims are wrong based on
current SCOTUS precedent.
The SCOTUS cannot legislate. They cannot write law. They can, however,
nullify law.
I would, however, love to see what law was written by any SCOTUS judge.
Of course "Constitutional law" refers to interpretation of law. That
observation has no relevance to my claim that your assertion that SSM is
protected by the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments is without basis in
precedent - and in the case of the 9th and 14th amendments conflicts
with precedent.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 08:44:37 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Johnny wrote:
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of singles
because
they are not married.
Except, of course, that laws passed by the states may not discriminate.
SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in concordance.
It's baffling how people state Constitutional law as if they are on the
SCOTUS. Both Johnny's and DanielSan's claims are wrong based on
current SCOTUS precedent.
The SCOTUS cannot legislate. They cannot write law. They can,
however, nullify law.
I would, however, love to see what law was written by any SCOTUS judge.
Of course "Constitutional law" refers to interpretation of law. That
observation has no relevance to my claim that your assertion that SSM is
protected by the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments is without basis in
precedent - and in the case of the 9th and 14th amendments conflicts
with precedent.
Yes, it is without precedent, but that does not negate the fact that SSM
is not protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th.
--
*****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*---------------------------------------------------*
* "You can safely assume that you've created God in *
* your own image when it turns out that God hates *
* all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott *
*****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 09:05:34 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Johnny wrote:
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of singles
because they are not married.
Except, of course, that laws passed by the states may not
discriminate.
SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in
concordance.
It's baffling how people state Constitutional law as if they are on the
SCOTUS. Both Johnny's and DanielSan's claims are wrong based on
current SCOTUS precedent.
The SCOTUS cannot legislate. They cannot write law. They can,
however, nullify law.
I would, however, love to see what law was written by any SCOTUS judge.
Of course "Constitutional law" refers to interpretation of law. That
observation has no relevance to my claim that your assertion that SSM
is protected by the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments is without basis in
precedent - and in the case of the 9th and 14th amendments conflicts
with precedent.
Yes, it is without precedent, but that does not negate the fact that SSM
is not protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th.
I am guessing you meant to say that SSM is protected. Assuming that is
true, how is it a "fact" if there is no precedent. SCOTUS tells us what
the facts are, not you, not Johnny.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 09:12:04 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Johnny wrote:
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of singles
because they are not married.
Except, of course, that laws passed by the states may not
discriminate.
SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in
concordance.
It's baffling how people state Constitutional law as if they are on
the
SCOTUS. Both Johnny's and DanielSan's claims are wrong based on
current SCOTUS precedent.
The SCOTUS cannot legislate. They cannot write law. They can,
however, nullify law.
I would, however, love to see what law was written by any SCOTUS judge.
Of course "Constitutional law" refers to interpretation of law. That
observation has no relevance to my claim that your assertion that SSM
is protected by the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments is without basis in
precedent - and in the case of the 9th and 14th amendments conflicts
with precedent.
Yes, it is without precedent, but that does not negate the fact that
SSM is not protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th.
I am guessing you meant to say that SSM is protected. Assuming that is
true, how is it a "fact" if there is no precedent. SCOTUS tells us what
the facts are, not you, not Johnny.
Well, when SSM comes before the Supreme Court, we shall know, won't we?
However, _MY_ intepretation of "equal protection" and "rights not
enumerated in the Constitution" says that banning SSM is unconstitutional.
--
*****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*---------------------------------------------------*
* "You can safely assume that you've created God in *
* your own image when it turns out that God hates *
* all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott *
*****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 09:18:25 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Johnny wrote:
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of
singles because they are not married.
Except, of course, that laws passed by the states may not
discriminate.
SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in
concordance.
It's baffling how people state Constitutional law as if they are
on the
SCOTUS. Both Johnny's and DanielSan's claims are wrong based on
current SCOTUS precedent.
The SCOTUS cannot legislate. They cannot write law. They can,
however, nullify law.
I would, however, love to see what law was written by any SCOTUS
judge.
Of course "Constitutional law" refers to interpretation of law.
That observation has no relevance to my claim that your assertion
that SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments is
without basis in precedent - and in the case of the 9th and 14th
amendments conflicts with precedent.
Yes, it is without precedent, but that does not negate the fact that
SSM is not protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th.
I am guessing you meant to say that SSM is protected. Assuming that
is true, how is it a "fact" if there is no precedent. SCOTUS tells us
what the facts are, not you, not Johnny.
Well, when SSM comes before the Supreme Court, we shall know, won't we?
However, _MY_ intepretation of "equal protection" and "rights not
enumerated in the Constitution" says that banning SSM is unconstitutional.
Firstly, thanks for clarifying that your statements are merely your
opinions, they are not facts.
Secondly, it's already come before SCOTUS (Baker, 1971
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson). As of now, the fact is
SSM is not protected by the 14th.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 09:44:25 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Johnny wrote:
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of
singles because they are not married.
Except, of course, that laws passed by the states may not
discriminate.
SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in
concordance.
It's baffling how people state Constitutional law as if they are
on the
SCOTUS. Both Johnny's and DanielSan's claims are wrong based on
current SCOTUS precedent.
The SCOTUS cannot legislate. They cannot write law. They can,
however, nullify law.
I would, however, love to see what law was written by any SCOTUS
judge.
Of course "Constitutional law" refers to interpretation of law.
That observation has no relevance to my claim that your assertion
that SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments is
without basis in precedent - and in the case of the 9th and 14th
amendments conflicts with precedent.
Yes, it is without precedent, but that does not negate the fact that
SSM is not protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th.
I am guessing you meant to say that SSM is protected. Assuming that
is true, how is it a "fact" if there is no precedent. SCOTUS tells
us what the facts are, not you, not Johnny.
Well, when SSM comes before the Supreme Court, we shall know, won't
we? However, _MY_ intepretation of "equal protection" and "rights not
enumerated in the Constitution" says that banning SSM is
unconstitutional.
Firstly, thanks for clarifying that your statements are merely your
opinions, they are not facts.
Secondly, it's already come before SCOTUS (Baker, 1971
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson). As of now, the fact is
SSM is not protected by the 14th.
The SCOTUS did not rule on the constitutionality of SSM. It ruled on
the substantiveness of the federal question, because it was a intrastate
issue. It did not rule out the chance the actual case for/against SSM
being tried in the SCOTUS, if it were a federal issue.
--
*****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*---------------------------------------------------*
* "You can safely assume that you've created God in *
* your own image when it turns out that God hates *
* all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott *
*****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 09:48:09 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Johnny wrote:
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of
singles because they are not married.
Except, of course, that laws passed by the states may not
discriminate.
SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in
concordance.
It's baffling how people state Constitutional law as if they are
on the
SCOTUS. Both Johnny's and DanielSan's claims are wrong based on
current SCOTUS precedent.
The SCOTUS cannot legislate. They cannot write law. They can,
however, nullify law.
I would, however, love to see what law was written by any SCOTUS
judge.
Of course "Constitutional law" refers to interpretation of law.
That observation has no relevance to my claim that your assertion
that SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments is
without basis in precedent - and in the case of the 9th and 14th
amendments conflicts with precedent.
Yes, it is without precedent, but that does not negate the fact
that SSM is not protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th.
I am guessing you meant to say that SSM is protected. Assuming that
is true, how is it a "fact" if there is no precedent. SCOTUS tells
us what the facts are, not you, not Johnny.
Well, when SSM comes before the Supreme Court, we shall know, won't
we? However, _MY_ intepretation of "equal protection" and "rights
not enumerated in the Constitution" says that banning SSM is
unconstitutional.
Firstly, thanks for clarifying that your statements are merely your
opinions, they are not facts.
Secondly, it's already come before SCOTUS (Baker, 1971
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson). As of now, the fact is
SSM is not protected by the 14th.
The SCOTUS did not rule on the constitutionality of SSM. It ruled on
the substantiveness of the federal question, because it was a intrastate
issue. It did not rule out the chance the actual case for/against SSM
being tried in the SCOTUS, if it were a federal issue.
Read the link. Binding precedent was set as if SCOTUS ruled on the
merits of the case.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 10:44:10 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Johnny wrote:
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of
singles because they are not married.
Except, of course, that laws passed by the states may not
discriminate.
SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in
concordance.
It's baffling how people state Constitutional law as if they
are on the
SCOTUS. Both Johnny's and DanielSan's claims are wrong based on
current SCOTUS precedent.
The SCOTUS cannot legislate. They cannot write law. They can,
however, nullify law.
I would, however, love to see what law was written by any SCOTUS
judge.
Of course "Constitutional law" refers to interpretation of law.
That observation has no relevance to my claim that your assertion
that SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments is
without basis in precedent - and in the case of the 9th and 14th
amendments conflicts with precedent.
Yes, it is without precedent, but that does not negate the fact
that SSM is not protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th.
I am guessing you meant to say that SSM is protected. Assuming
that is true, how is it a "fact" if there is no precedent. SCOTUS
tells us what the facts are, not you, not Johnny.
Well, when SSM comes before the Supreme Court, we shall know, won't
we? However, _MY_ intepretation of "equal protection" and "rights
not enumerated in the Constitution" says that banning SSM is
unconstitutional.
Firstly, thanks for clarifying that your statements are merely your
opinions, they are not facts.
Secondly, it's already come before SCOTUS (Baker, 1971
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson). As of now, the fact
is SSM is not protected by the 14th.
The SCOTUS did not rule on the constitutionality of SSM. It ruled on
the substantiveness of the federal question, because it was a
intrastate issue. It did not rule out the chance the actual case
for/against SSM being tried in the SCOTUS, if it were a federal issue.
Read the link.
I read it. And I read the rulings.
Binding precedent was set as if SCOTUS ruled on the
merits of the case.
But, the SCOTUS did NOT rule on the merits of the case, just the
substantiveness of the "federal question."
--
*****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*---------------------------------------------------*
* "You can safely assume that you've created God in *
* your own image when it turns out that God hates *
* all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott *
*****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 07:14:05 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Johnny wrote:
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of
singles because they are not married.
Except, of course, that laws passed by the states may not
discriminate.
SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in
concordance.
It's baffling how people state Constitutional law as if they
are on the
SCOTUS. Both Johnny's and DanielSan's claims are wrong based on
current SCOTUS precedent.
The SCOTUS cannot legislate. They cannot write law. They can,
however, nullify law.
I would, however, love to see what law was written by any
SCOTUS judge.
Of course "Constitutional law" refers to interpretation of law.
That observation has no relevance to my claim that your
assertion that SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th and 14th
Amendments is without basis in precedent - and in the case of
the 9th and 14th amendments conflicts with precedent.
Yes, it is without precedent, but that does not negate the fact
that SSM is not protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th.
I am guessing you meant to say that SSM is protected. Assuming
that is true, how is it a "fact" if there is no precedent. SCOTUS
tells us what the facts are, not you, not Johnny.
Well, when SSM comes before the Supreme Court, we shall know, won't
we? However, _MY_ intepretation of "equal protection" and "rights
not enumerated in the Constitution" says that banning SSM is
unconstitutional.
Firstly, thanks for clarifying that your statements are merely your
opinions, they are not facts.
Secondly, it's already come before SCOTUS (Baker, 1971
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson). As of now, the fact
is SSM is not protected by the 14th.
The SCOTUS did not rule on the constitutionality of SSM. It ruled on
the substantiveness of the federal question, because it was a
intrastate issue. It did not rule out the chance the actual case
for/against SSM being tried in the SCOTUS, if it were a federal issue.
Read the link.
I read it. And I read the rulings.
Binding precedent was set as if SCOTUS ruled on the merits of the case.
But, the SCOTUS did NOT rule on the merits of the case, just the
substantiveness of the "federal question."
From the link:
"Unlike a denial of certiorari, a dismissal for want of a substantial
federal question constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, and
as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts."
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 10:49:33 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Johnny wrote:
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of
singles because they are not married.
Except, of course, that laws passed by the states may not
discriminate.
SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in
concordance.
It's baffling how people state Constitutional law as if they
are on the
SCOTUS. Both Johnny's and DanielSan's claims are wrong based on
current SCOTUS precedent.
The SCOTUS cannot legislate. They cannot write law. They
can, however, nullify law.
I would, however, love to see what law was written by any
SCOTUS judge.
Of course "Constitutional law" refers to interpretation of
law. That observation has no relevance to my claim that your
assertion that SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th and 14th
Amendments is without basis in precedent - and in the case of
the 9th and 14th amendments conflicts with precedent.
Yes, it is without precedent, but that does not negate the fact
that SSM is not protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th.
I am guessing you meant to say that SSM is protected. Assuming
that is true, how is it a "fact" if there is no precedent.
SCOTUS tells us what the facts are, not you, not Johnny.
Well, when SSM comes before the Supreme Court, we shall know,
won't we? However, _MY_ intepretation of "equal protection" and
"rights not enumerated in the Constitution" says that banning SSM
is unconstitutional.
Firstly, thanks for clarifying that your statements are merely your
opinions, they are not facts.
Secondly, it's already come before SCOTUS (Baker, 1971
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson). As of now, the fact
is SSM is not protected by the 14th.
The SCOTUS did not rule on the constitutionality of SSM. It ruled
on the substantiveness of the federal question, because it was a
intrastate issue. It did not rule out the chance the actual case
for/against SSM being tried in the SCOTUS, if it were a federal issue.
Read the link.
I read it. And I read the rulings.
Binding precedent was set as if SCOTUS ruled on the merits of the case.
But, the SCOTUS did NOT rule on the merits of the case, just the
substantiveness of the "federal question."
From the link:
"Unlike a denial of certiorari, a dismissal for want of a substantial
federal question constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, and
as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts."
Josh Rosenbluth
But not precedent on the SCOTUS.
--
*****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*---------------------------------------------------*
* "You can safely assume that you've created God in *
* your own image when it turns out that God hates *
* all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott *
*****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bitchin Bonney" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 11:20:43 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 22:05:34 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Johnny wrote:
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of singles
because they are not married.
Except, of course, that laws passed by the states may not
discriminate.
SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in
concordance.
It's baffling how people state Constitutional law as if they are on the
SCOTUS. Both Johnny's and DanielSan's claims are wrong based on
current SCOTUS precedent.
The SCOTUS cannot legislate. They cannot write law. They can,
however, nullify law.
I would, however, love to see what law was written by any SCOTUS judge.
Of course "Constitutional law" refers to interpretation of law. That
observation has no relevance to my claim that your assertion that SSM
is protected by the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments is without basis in
precedent - and in the case of the 9th and 14th amendments conflicts
with precedent.
Yes, it is without precedent, but that does not negate the fact that SSM
is not protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th.
I am guessing you meant to say that SSM is protected. Assuming that is
true, how is it a "fact" if there is no precedent. SCOTUS tells us what
the facts are, not you, not Johnny.
The right to marry is the only thing that is protected and that does
not include any suspect class of people. Only the right to marry in
the traditional sense of one man and one woman. Loving vs Virginia
never mentions giving blacks the right to marry white (or vice versa)
it only addresses THE RIGHT OF A MAN AND WOMAN TO MARRY.
See: Smelt v. Orange County (California)
(US District Court 2005) the fundamental right to marry does
not extend to same-sex couples, and even though the federal DOMA does
harm homosexuals as a class, it is within the bounds of congressional
powers to do so
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 11:23:28 PM |
|
|
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 22:05:34 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Johnny wrote:
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of singles
because they are not married.
Except, of course, that laws passed by the states may not
discriminate.
SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in
concordance.
It's baffling how people state Constitutional law as if they are on the
SCOTUS. Both Johnny's and DanielSan's claims are wrong based on
current SCOTUS precedent.
The SCOTUS cannot legislate. They cannot write law. They can,
however, nullify law.
I would, however, love to see what law was written by any SCOTUS judge.
Of course "Constitutional law" refers to interpretation of law. That
observation has no relevance to my claim that your assertion that SSM
is protected by the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments is without basis in
precedent - and in the case of the 9th and 14th amendments conflicts
with precedent.
Yes, it is without precedent, but that does not negate the fact that SSM
is not protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th.
I am guessing you meant to say that SSM is protected. Assuming that is
true, how is it a "fact" if there is no precedent. SCOTUS tells us what
the facts are, not you, not Johnny.
The right to marry is the only thing that is protected and that does
not include any suspect class of people. Only the right to marry in
the traditional sense of one man and one woman.
Traditional sense?
--
*****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*---------------------------------------------------*
* "You can safely assume that you've created God in *
* your own image when it turns out that God hates *
* all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott *
*****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dysperdis" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
02 May 2006 03:00:52 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:44543bd3$0$23887$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 22:05:34 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Johnny wrote:
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of singles
because they are not married.
Except, of course, that laws passed by the states may not
discriminate.
SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in
concordance.
It's baffling how people state Constitutional law as if they are on
the
SCOTUS. Both Johnny's and DanielSan's claims are wrong based on
current SCOTUS precedent.
The SCOTUS cannot legislate. They cannot write law. They can,
however, nullify law.
I would, however, love to see what law was written by any SCOTUS
judge.
Of course "Constitutional law" refers to interpretation of law. That
observation has no relevance to my claim that your assertion that SSM
is protected by the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments is without basis in
precedent - and in the case of the 9th and 14th amendments conflicts
with precedent.
Yes, it is without precedent, but that does not negate the fact that SSM
is not protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th.
I am guessing you meant to say that SSM is protected. Assuming that is
true, how is it a "fact" if there is no precedent. SCOTUS tells us what
the facts are, not you, not Johnny.
The right to marry is the only thing that is protected and that does
not include any suspect class of people. Only the right to marry in
the traditional sense of one man and one woman.
Traditional sense?
Yeah, you know, a man and his chattel, like it was in the colonial days.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 07:16:19 AM |
|
|
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 22:05:34 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Johnny wrote:
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of singles
because they are not married.
Except, of course, that laws passed by the states may not
discriminate.
SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in
concordance.
It's baffling how people state Constitutional law as if they are on the
SCOTUS. Both Johnny's and DanielSan's claims are wrong based on
current SCOTUS precedent.
The SCOTUS cannot legislate. They cannot write law. They can,
however, nullify law.
I would, however, love to see what law was written by any SCOTUS judge.
Of course "Constitutional law" refers to interpretation of law. That
observation has no relevance to my claim that your assertion that SSM
is protected by the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments is without basis in
precedent - and in the case of the 9th and 14th amendments conflicts
with precedent.
Yes, it is without precedent, but that does not negate the fact that SSM
is not protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th.
I am guessing you meant to say that SSM is protected. Assuming that is
true, how is it a "fact" if there is no precedent. SCOTUS tells us what
the facts are, not you, not Johnny.
The right to marry is the only thing that is protected and that does
not include any suspect class of people. Only the right to marry in
the traditional sense of one man and one woman. Loving vs Virginia
never mentions giving blacks the right to marry white (or vice versa)
it only addresses THE RIGHT OF A MAN AND WOMAN TO MARRY.
While it is true Loving doesn't discuss same-sex marriage, it explicitly
says blacks have the right to marry whites.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bitchin Bonney" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 10:27:47 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:16:19 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 22:05:34 -0400, Josh Rosenbluth
<jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Johnny wrote:
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of singles
because they are not married.
Except, of course, that laws passed by the states may not
discriminate.
SSM is protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments in
concordance.
It's baffling how people state Constitutional law as if they are on the
SCOTUS. Both Johnny's and DanielSan's claims are wrong based on
current SCOTUS precedent.
The SCOTUS cannot legislate. They cannot write law. They can,
however, nullify law.
I would, however, love to see what law was written by any SCOTUS judge.
Of course "Constitutional law" refers to interpretation of law. That
observation has no relevance to my claim that your assertion that SSM
is protected by the 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments is without basis in
precedent - and in the case of the 9th and 14th amendments conflicts
with precedent.
Yes, it is without precedent, but that does not negate the fact that SSM
is not protected by the 9th, 10th, and 14th.
I am guessing you meant to say that SSM is protected. Assuming that is
true, how is it a "fact" if there is no precedent. SCOTUS tells us what
the facts are, not you, not Johnny.
The right to marry is the only thing that is protected and that does
not include any suspect class of people. Only the right to marry in
the traditional sense of one man and one woman. Loving vs Virginia
never mentions giving blacks the right to marry white (or vice versa)
it only addresses THE RIGHT OF A MAN AND WOMAN TO MARRY.
While it is true Loving doesn't discuss same-sex marriage, it explicitly
says blacks have the right to marry whites.
But only in the sense that any man and any woman can marry -- The
right to marry is what's protected. In a particular case in which a
convicted felon who was incarcerated was denied the right the marry by
the state, The higher court ruled in favor of the felon BUT DID NOT
give him suspect class -- they only recognized him as A MAN with the
fundamental right to marry a woman.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 11:16:23 AM |
|
|
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
While it is true Loving doesn't discuss same-sex marriage, it explicitly
says blacks have the right to marry whites.
But only in the sense that any man and any woman can marry -- The
right to marry is what's protected. In a particular case in which a
convicted felon who was incarcerated was denied the right the marry by
the state, The higher court ruled in favor of the felon BUT DID NOT
give him suspect class -- they only recognized him as A MAN with the
fundamental right to marry a woman.
We already know the fundamental right to marry does not (yet) extend to
same-sex couples (per Baker). But, what's your point about suspect
classifications? Why did you bring it up?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 07:58:05 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6-ydnRkmz7nOxM7ZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cqGdnaJ5eZZMK8_ZRVn_vQ@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"newsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146204330.573590.256950@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Show where the Constitution specifically prevents homosexuality. Be
specific.
Changing the tune already?
I thought this was about rights and/or priveleges.
14th Amendment equal protection, and since marriage is a
"fundamental right" not a privelege, due process of the law,
if a man has the right to marry a woman, then the woman
must have the very same right as the man to marry a woman,
or her equal protection and due process of the law has been
violated.
Is the word 'right' or 'rights' in the 14th Amendment?
Also, you are still missing the point.
The 14th Amendment, if interpreted verbatim shows me that their is no
Constitutional basis for denying SINGLE persons the privileges afforded
to married persons.
The 14th Amendment says nothing about being married.
It says nothing about homosexuality, either, does it? Or abortion. :)
Your stance shows further that discrimination aganst singles is illegal.
Wha?? I think singles should be allowed to marry the consenting adult of
their choice- or not, as the case may be.
The Amendment is NOT only about the right to marry.
Well, that would be the issue we were discussing....
You still have not shown me how this is discriminating. In fact you have
not shown how *anybody* is discriminating against *anybody else*. The only
one practicing discrimination is *you*.
Now, you have a task. Show where the Constitution specifically prevents
homosexuality. Be specific.
Why?
Because you made the claim.
Read the Amendment, and stop acting as if the right to marry is the only
thing it is addressing.
It's the only thing *this thread* was addressing. If you want to discuss
other issues, start a new thread.
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of singles because
they are not married.
What does that have to do with the issue being discussed?
--
--sexkitten--
I have nothing but contempt for the kind of governor who is afraid, for
whatever reason, to follow the course that he knows is best for the
State; and as for the man who sets private friendship above the public
welfare - I have no use for him either.
-Sophocles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 05:20:17 PM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R4GdnR_M4Z6N_s7ZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6-ydnRkmz7nOxM7ZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cqGdnaJ5eZZMK8_ZRVn_vQ@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"newsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146204330.573590.256950@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Show where the Constitution specifically prevents homosexuality. Be
specific.
Changing the tune already?
I thought this was about rights and/or priveleges.
14th Amendment equal protection, and since marriage is a
"fundamental right" not a privelege, due process of the law,
if a man has the right to marry a woman, then the woman
must have the very same right as the man to marry a woman,
or her equal protection and due process of the law has been
violated.
Is the word 'right' or 'rights' in the 14th Amendment?
Also, you are still missing the point.
The 14th Amendment, if interpreted verbatim shows me that their is no
Constitutional basis for denying SINGLE persons the privileges
afforded to married persons.
The 14th Amendment says nothing about being married.
It says nothing about homosexuality, either, does it? Or abortion. :)
Your stance shows further that discrimination aganst singles is illegal.
Wha?? I think singles should be allowed to marry the consenting adult of
their choice- or not, as the case may be.
The Amendment is NOT only about the right to marry.
Well, that would be the issue we were discussing....
You still have not shown me how this is discriminating. In fact you have
not shown how *anybody* is discriminating against *anybody else*. The
only one practicing discrimination is *you*.
Now, you have a task. Show where the Constitution specifically prevents
homosexuality. Be specific.
Why?
Because you made the claim.
Read the Amendment, and stop acting as if the right to marry is the only
thing it is addressing.
It's the only thing *this thread* was addressing. If you want to discuss
other issues, start a new thread.
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of singles because
they are not married.
What does that have to do with the issue being discussed?
The issue being discussed is same-sex marriage, right?
The 14th Amendment does nothing to allow married persons to receive
privileges and protections above single persons.
Why does it matter if same-sex marriage is allowed or not?
The issue which is more important is equal protection and privilege, and the
14th Amendment has nothing to do with granting extra benefits or privileges
because of one's marital status.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 05:29:20 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R4GdnR_M4Z6N_s7ZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6-ydnRkmz7nOxM7ZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cqGdnaJ5eZZMK8_ZRVn_vQ@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"newsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146204330.573590.256950@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Show where the Constitution specifically prevents homosexuality. Be
specific.
Changing the tune already?
I thought this was about rights and/or priveleges.
14th Amendment equal protection, and since marriage is a
"fundamental right" not a privelege, due process of the law,
if a man has the right to marry a woman, then the woman
must have the very same right as the man to marry a woman,
or her equal protection and due process of the law has been
violated.
Is the word 'right' or 'rights' in the 14th Amendment?
Also, you are still missing the point.
The 14th Amendment, if interpreted verbatim shows me that their is no
Constitutional basis for denying SINGLE persons the privileges
afforded to married persons.
The 14th Amendment says nothing about being married.
It says nothing about homosexuality, either, does it? Or abortion. :)
Your stance shows further that discrimination aganst singles is illegal.
Wha?? I think singles should be allowed to marry the consenting adult of
their choice- or not, as the case may be.
The Amendment is NOT only about the right to marry.
Well, that would be the issue we were discussing....
You still have not shown me how this is discriminating. In fact you have
not shown how *anybody* is discriminating against *anybody else*. The
only one practicing discrimination is *you*.
Now, you have a task. Show where the Constitution specifically prevents
homosexuality. Be specific.
Why?
Because you made the claim.
Read the Amendment, and stop acting as if the right to marry is the only
thing it is addressing.
It's the only thing *this thread* was addressing. If you want to discuss
other issues, start a new thread.
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of singles because
they are not married.
What does that have to do with the issue being discussed?
The issue being discussed is same-sex marriage, right?
The 14th Amendment does nothing to allow married persons to receive
privileges and protections above single persons.
They don't.
Why does it matter if same-sex marriage is allowed or not?
Because hetero marriage is. Allowing one but not the other is
discrimination.
The issue which is more important is equal protection and privilege, and the
14th Amendment has nothing to do with granting extra benefits or privileges
because of one's marital status.
Are you saying that *all* marriage should therefore be illegal?
--
--sexkitten--
"I smell blood and an era of prominent madmen."
-W.H. Auden
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 09:09:39 PM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DLqdnSWAeYFudc7ZRVn_vQ@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R4GdnR_M4Z6N_s7ZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6-ydnRkmz7nOxM7ZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cqGdnaJ5eZZMK8_ZRVn_vQ@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"newsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146204330.573590.256950@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Show where the Constitution specifically prevents homosexuality.
Be
specific.
Changing the tune already?
I thought this was about rights and/or priveleges.
14th Amendment equal protection, and since marriage is a
"fundamental right" not a privelege, due process of the law,
if a man has the right to marry a woman, then the woman
must have the very same right as the man to marry a woman,
or her equal protection and due process of the law has been
violated.
Is the word 'right' or 'rights' in the 14th Amendment?
Also, you are still missing the point.
The 14th Amendment, if interpreted verbatim shows me that their is
no Constitutional basis for denying SINGLE persons the privileges
afforded to married persons.
The 14th Amendment says nothing about being married.
It says nothing about homosexuality, either, does it? Or abortion. :)
Your stance shows further that discrimination aganst singles is
illegal.
Wha?? I think singles should be allowed to marry the consenting adult
of their choice- or not, as the case may be.
The Amendment is NOT only about the right to marry.
Well, that would be the issue we were discussing....
You still have not shown me how this is discriminating. In fact you
have not shown how *anybody* is discriminating against *anybody else*.
The only one practicing discrimination is *you*.
Now, you have a task. Show where the Constitution specifically prevents
homosexuality. Be specific.
Why?
Because you made the claim.
Read the Amendment, and stop acting as if the right to marry is the only
thing it is addressing.
It's the only thing *this thread* was addressing. If you want to discuss
other issues, start a new thread.
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of singles
because they are not married.
What does that have to do with the issue being discussed?
The issue being discussed is same-sex marriage, right?
The 14th Amendment does nothing to allow married persons to receive
privileges and protections above single persons.
They don't.
I take it you are single and don't realize it does or that you are married
and engaging in self-preservation there.
Why does it matter if same-sex marriage is allowed or not?
Because hetero marriage is. Allowing one but not the other is
discrimination.
To claim such would require that marriage has been proven to be a
Constitutionally protected right which grants unequal rights to married
persons above single persons, which can not be done since the 14th Amendment
forbids, verbatim.
The issue which is more important is equal protection and privilege, and
the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with granting extra benefits or
privileges because of one's marital status.
Are you saying that *all* marriage should therefore be illegal?
No.
I am saying that claims of unequal protections and privelges on the basis of
marital status are unconstitutional.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 10:32:23 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DLqdnSWAeYFudc7ZRVn_vQ@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R4GdnR_M4Z6N_s7ZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6-ydnRkmz7nOxM7ZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cqGdnaJ5eZZMK8_ZRVn_vQ@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"newsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146204330.573590.256950@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Show where the Constitution specifically prevents homosexuality.
Be
specific.
Changing the tune already?
I thought this was about rights and/or priveleges.
14th Amendment equal protection, and since marriage is a
"fundamental right" not a privelege, due process of the law,
if a man has the right to marry a woman, then the woman
must have the very same right as the man to marry a woman,
or her equal protection and due process of the law has been
violated.
Is the word 'right' or 'rights' in the 14th Amendment?
Also, you are still missing the point.
The 14th Amendment, if interpreted verbatim shows me that their is
no Constitutional basis for denying SINGLE persons the privileges
afforded to married persons.
The 14th Amendment says nothing about being married.
It says nothing about homosexuality, either, does it? Or abortion. :)
Your stance shows further that discrimination aganst singles is
illegal.
Wha?? I think singles should be allowed to marry the consenting adult
of their choice- or not, as the case may be.
The Amendment is NOT only about the right to marry.
Well, that would be the issue we were discussing....
You still have not shown me how this is discriminating. In fact you
have not shown how *anybody* is discriminating against *anybody else*.
The only one practicing discrimination is *you*.
Now, you have a task. Show where the Constitution specifically prevents
homosexuality. Be specific.
Why?
Because you made the claim.
Read the Amendment, and stop acting as if the right to marry is the only
thing it is addressing.
It's the only thing *this thread* was addressing. If you want to discuss
other issues, start a new thread.
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of singles
because they are not married.
What does that have to do with the issue being discussed?
The issue being discussed is same-sex marriage, right?
The 14th Amendment does nothing to allow married persons to receive
privileges and protections above single persons.
They don't.
I take it you are single and don't realize it does or that you are married
and engaging in self-preservation there.
***STILL WAITING*** for you to explain how they are discriminated against.
Why does it matter if same-sex marriage is allowed or not?
Because hetero marriage is. Allowing one but not the other is
discrimination.
To claim such would require that marriage has been proven to be a
Constitutionally protected right which grants unequal rights to married
persons above single persons,
There are no unequal rights. Single people can choose to be married or
not, with no penalties either way.
which can not be done since the 14th Amendment
forbids, verbatim.
The issue which is more important is equal protection and privilege, and
the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with granting extra benefits or
privileges because of one's marital status.
Are you saying that *all* marriage should therefore be illegal?
No.
I am saying that claims of unequal protections and privelges on the basis of
marital status are unconstitutional.
It's a damn good thing nobody's asking for any then, isn't it? Where DO
you come up with these strawmen?
--
--sexkitten--
"I smell blood and an era of prominent madmen."
-W.H. Auden
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 10:37:11 AM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rKqdnRlz0sdmssnZRVn_vQ@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DLqdnSWAeYFudc7ZRVn_vQ@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R4GdnR_M4Z6N_s7ZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6-ydnRkmz7nOxM7ZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cqGdnaJ5eZZMK8_ZRVn_vQ@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"newsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146204330.573590.256950@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
Show where the Constitution specifically prevents
homosexuality. Be
specific.
Changing the tune already?
I thought this was about rights and/or priveleges.
14th Amendment equal protection, and since marriage is a
"fundamental right" not a privelege, due process of the law,
if a man has the right to marry a woman, then the woman
must have the very same right as the man to marry a woman,
or her equal protection and due process of the law has been
violated.
Is the word 'right' or 'rights' in the 14th Amendment?
Also, you are still missing the point.
The 14th Amendment, if interpreted verbatim shows me that their is
no Constitutional basis for denying SINGLE persons the privileges
afforded to married persons.
The 14th Amendment says nothing about being married.
It says nothing about homosexuality, either, does it? Or abortion.
:)
Your stance shows further that discrimination aganst singles is
illegal.
Wha?? I think singles should be allowed to marry the consenting adult
of their choice- or not, as the case may be.
The Amendment is NOT only about the right to marry.
Well, that would be the issue we were discussing....
You still have not shown me how this is discriminating. In fact you
have not shown how *anybody* is discriminating against *anybody
else*. The only one practicing discrimination is *you*.
Now, you have a task. Show where the Constitution specifically
prevents homosexuality. Be specific.
Why?
Because you made the claim.
Read the Amendment, and stop acting as if the right to marry is the
only thing it is addressing.
It's the only thing *this thread* was addressing. If you want to
discuss other issues, start a new thread.
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of singles
because they are not married.
What does that have to do with the issue being discussed?
The issue being discussed is same-sex marriage, right?
The 14th Amendment does nothing to allow married persons to receive
privileges and protections above single persons.
They don't.
I take it you are single and don't realize it does or that you are
married and engaging in self-preservation there.
***STILL WAITING*** for you to explain how they are discriminated against.
Read the tax code. Read the insurance rates for spouses.
Why does it matter if same-sex marriage is allowed or not?
Because hetero marriage is. Allowing one but not the other is
discrimination.
To claim such would require that marriage has been proven to be a
Constitutionally protected right which grants unequal rights to married
persons above single persons,
There are no unequal rights.
*****. Men are not given the right to choose.
That violates the 14th Amendment.
Single people can choose to be married or not, with no penalties either
way.
*****.
People attain greater privileges and protections when they marry than
singles have.
Unequal protection and unequal privilege; both of which are illegal
according to the 14th Amendment.
which can not be done since the 14th Amendment
forbids, verbatim.
The issue which is more important is equal protection and privilege, and
the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with granting extra benefits or
privileges because of one's marital status.
Are you saying that *all* marriage should therefore be illegal?
No.
I am saying that AWARDS of unequal protections and privileges on the
basis of marital status are unconstitutional; and that the argument that
gays are not equally protected because they can not >> marry is a lie.
It's a damn good thing nobody's asking for any then, isn't it? Where DO
you come up with these strawmen?
Why do you say that gays are not equally protected when they are if you say
I am?
Why do gays ***** that they do not have equal rights if you say I have equal
rigths?
The reason they are bitching is because marrieds do have UNEQUAL protections
and PRIVILEGES.
Eliminate the unequal protections and privileges that people are awarded on
the basis of their marital status and you will see the bitching gone in this
issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 11:44:30 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rKqdnRlz0sdmssnZRVn_vQ@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DLqdnSWAeYFudc7ZRVn_vQ@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:R4GdnR_M4Z6N_s7ZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6-ydnRkmz7nOxM7ZRVn_vA@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cqGdnaJ5eZZMK8_ZRVn_vQ@giganews.com...
Johnny wrote:
"newsguy" <nuwsguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146204330.573590.256950@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
Show where the Constitution specifically prevents
homosexuality. Be
specific.
Changing the tune already?
I thought this was about rights and/or priveleges.
14th Amendment equal protection, and since marriage is a
"fundamental right" not a privelege, due process of the law,
if a man has the right to marry a woman, then the woman
must have the very same right as the man to marry a woman,
or her equal protection and due process of the law has been
violated.
Is the word 'right' or 'rights' in the 14th Amendment?
Also, you are still missing the point.
The 14th Amendment, if interpreted verbatim shows me that their is
no Constitutional basis for denying SINGLE persons the privileges
afforded to married persons.
The 14th Amendment says nothing about being married.
It says nothing about homosexuality, either, does it? Or abortion.
:)
Your stance shows further that discrimination aganst singles is
illegal.
Wha?? I think singles should be allowed to marry the consenting adult
of their choice- or not, as the case may be.
The Amendment is NOT only about the right to marry.
Well, that would be the issue we were discussing....
You still have not shown me how this is discriminating. In fact you
have not shown how *anybody* is discriminating against *anybody
else*. The only one practicing discrimination is *you*.
Now, you have a task. Show where the Constitution specifically
prevents homosexuality. Be specific.
Why?
Because you made the claim.
Read the Amendment, and stop acting as if the right to marry is the
only thing it is addressing.
It's the only thing *this thread* was addressing. If you want to
discuss other issues, start a new thread.
The Amendment is about equal protection and equal privileges.
There is no Constitutional basis for unequal treatment of singles
because they are not married.
What does that have to do with the issue being discussed?
The issue being discussed is same-sex marriage, right?
The 14th Amendment does nothing to allow married persons to receive
privileges and protections above single persons.
They don't.
I take it you are single and don't realize it does or that you are
married and engaging in self-preservation there.
***STILL WAITING*** for you to explain how they are discriminated against.
Read the tax code. Read the insurance rates for spouses.
I'll grant you the tax code, which IIRC penalizes married couples. And
insurance rates, at least through my employer, are expensive only for
the initial coverage. Spouse and children aren't an enormous amount extra.
So, who was being discriminated against again? I forgot.
Why does it matter if same-sex marriage is allowed or not?
Because hetero marriage is. Allowing one but not the other is
discrimination.
To claim such would require that marriage has been proven to be a
Constitutionally protected right which grants unequal rights to married
persons above single persons,
There are no unequal rights.
*****. Men are not given the right to choose.
Please try to keep up with the subject being discussed.
That violates the 14th Amendment.
I agree, but what does it have to do with marriage?
Single people can choose to be married or not, with no penalties either
way.
*****.
'Fraid not.
People attain greater privileges and protections when they marry than
singles have.
Um, no.
Unequal protection and unequal privilege; both of which are illegal
according to the 14th Amendment.
which can not be done since the 14th Amendment
forbids, verbatim.
The issue which is more important is equal protection and privilege, and
the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with granting extra benefits or
privileges because of one's marital status.
Are you saying that *all* marriage should therefore be illegal?
No.
I am saying that AWARDS of unequal protections and privileges on the
basis of marital status are unconstitutional; and that the argument that
gays are not equally protected because they can not >> marry is a lie.
It's a damn good thing nobody's asking for any then, isn't it? Where DO
you come up with these strawmen?
Why do you say that gays are not equally protected when they are if you say
I am?
Can you repeat that in English, please?
Why do gays ***** that they do not have equal rights if you say I have equal
rigths?
The reason they are bitching is because marrieds do have UNEQUAL protections
and PRIVILEGES.
Eliminate the unequal protections and privileges that people are awarded on
the basis of their marital status and you will see the bitching gone in this
issue.
No. It'll still happen.
--
--sexkitten--
Be Like Christians! Create Your Own Religion!
http://www.cryptoclast.org/Opinion/religion/create/
.
| | | | | | | |
