BREAKING>>>>Supreme court declares same-sex marriage a right in 5-4 vote

[jmyrlefuller]

Or they could be treated like everyone else and just get married.

Equal Protection Under the Law.

They were equally allowed to marry any willing partner of the opposite sex as anyone. The fact is, they didn't want to—and so they attached emotions such as "happiness" and that completely undefinable concept of "love"—as the sole reason for it, a notion Kennedy used to reach his ruling.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Exactly. Homosexuals could have many of the "rights" they seek through marriage simply by signing a POA or other legal agreement.

In Texas, one of the 14 States that did not allow same-sex marriage, if two people live together for even one day and either tell their friends and neighbors that they were married or refer to each other as husband and wife, they would receive all rights and benefits afforded to legally married couples without the need of a formal marriage license or ceremony.

That's Texas style sanctity of traditional marriage.

[Luis Gonzalez]

They were equally allowed to marry any willing partner of the opposite sex as anyone. The fact is, they didn't want to—and so they attached emotions such as "happiness" and that completely undefinable concept of "love"—as the sole reason for it, a notion Kennedy used to reach his ruling.

Please Jimmy, don't insult my intelligence with worn-out BS arguments like that one.

[Scottftlc]

Has anyone noticed how many transgender "reality" programs are popping up all over television, along with a number of transgender fictional programs? There is no way this many programs appear without it representing some sort of campaign.  I'm guessing health care plans will soon be required to cover "gender reassignment" "treatment".

[jmyrlefuller]

Please Jimmy, don't insult my intelligence with worn-out BS arguments like that one.

Translation: you don't want to rebut it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Translation: you don't want to rebut it.

Yes, I've rebutted that many times, and it's been rebutted so often that most intelligent posters don't even bother putting that pig of an excuse for logic up anymore.

I'm gleaming from some posts in this forum that you may not have a real clear understanding on the subject of marriage, or even relationships, so this may be a little difficult for you to comprehend, but being told you're free to marry anyone except that person that you do want to marry is not freedom Jimmy. It's not having a choice. It's being denied your right to decide who it is that you want to marry. It's the exact opposite of freedom.

Your BS "logic" amounts to telling an Orthodox Jew that the law making religious circumcision illegal does not single out their religion for discrimination because it applies to everyone equally.

My marrying a Chinese woman, a black woman, a one-legged woman, a Jewish woman, an atheist woman, an Eskimo woman, a Communist woman or a Catholic woman has no more of an impact on your life than if I were to marry a man.

It may offend you that I do, but you don't have a right to not be offended by legal activities that you may not approve of.

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Has anyone noticed how many transgender "reality" programs are popping up all over television, along with a number of transgender fictional programs? There is no way this many programs appear without it representing some sort of campaign.  I'm guessing health care plans will soon be required to cover "gender reassignment" "treatment".

You all waste so much time looking for boogeymen everywhere.

They're on TV because it's all we're talking about right now, and producers think that we'll watch out of morbid curiosity.

It will run it's course.

[PzLdr]

In Texas, one of the 14 States that did not allow same-sex marriage, if two people live together for even one day and either tell their friends and neighbors that they were married or refer to each other as husband and wife, they would receive all rights and benefits afforded to legally married couples without the need of a formal marriage license or ceremony.

That's Texas style sanctity of traditional marriage.

Actually, that's Common Law marriage, found in a hell of a lot more places than Texas, and derived from a tradition going back to at least medieval times; and when sodomy was punishable in all the same places Common Law marriage was allowed, by death. So what's your point?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Actually, that's Common Law marriage, found in a hell of a lot more places than Texas, and derived from a tradition going back to at least medieval times; and when sodomy was punishable in all the same places Common Law marriage was allowed, by death. So what's your point?

The point is that cohabitation is a sin, and that there's little sanctity to a "marriage" that's not even registered. So Texas gave legal standing to hook ups while claiming that they would defend the sanctity of marriage.

P.S. Polygamy has an older history than hook ups, as well as Biblical blessings. So by your logic, it should also be legal in Texas... right?

[mountaineer]

Interesting how the 14th Amendment now protects classes of people based on their sexual behavior. I'm sure that's what was intended. 

[PzLdr]

The point is that cohabitation is a sin, and that there's little sanctity to a "marriage" that's not even registered. So Texas gave legal standing to hook ups while claiming that they would defend the sanctity of marriage.

P.S. Polygamy has an older history than hook ups, as well as Biblical blessings. So by your logic, it should also be legal in Texas... right?

[1] Polygamy has an older history than hookups, but not in Western culture [You know, the Greeks and romans, the Europeans, those guys], and that issue, in the U.S. anyway, was settled in the 1850s-1860s during the confrontation between Brigham Young's Mormons and the U.S. Army, so, No, it wouldn't be, shouldn't be legal, in Texas.

[2] Common Law marriage was a response, in part, to a dearth of houses of worship and preachers in the less populated reaches of Coonial and western expansion America.

[3] In New York, which has no Common Law marriage provision, a Common Law marriage from a state that DOES recognize Common Law Marriage, will be recognized if the couple holds themselves out in New York as married.

[5] In none of those instances, was a "same-sex" marriage covered by the tradition or statutes.

[jmyrlefuller]

Yes, I've rebutted that many times, and it's been rebutted so often that most intelligent posters don't even bother putting that pig of an excuse for logic up anymore.

I'm gleaming from some posts in this forum that you may not have a real clear understanding on the subject of marriage, or even relationships, so this may be a little difficult for you to comprehend, but being told you're free to marry anyone except that person that you do want to marry is not freedom Jimmy. It's not having a choice. It's being denied your right to decide who it is that you want to marry. It's the exact opposite of freedom.

Your BS "logic" amounts to telling an Orthodox Jew that the law making religious circumcision illegal does not single out their religion for discrimination because it applies to everyone equally.

My marrying a Chinese woman, a black woman, a one-legged woman, a Jewish woman, an atheist woman, an Eskimo woman, a Communist woman or a Catholic woman has no more of an impact on your life than if I were to marry a man.

It may offend you that I do, but you don't have a right to not be offended by legal activities that you may not approve of.

 

I want to marry, but I don't have that choice, so your logic is just as full of BS.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Interesting how the 14th Amendment now protects classes of people based on their sexual behavior. I'm sure that's what was intended. 

It was intended, according to the people who framed it, to protect all rights from being violated by State governments.

It protects your right to not be discriminated against in the workplace, when choosing where you want to live, and who you wish to marry (Loving v. Virginia, "marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'"). Once all laws making homosexuality and homosexual acts illegal were brought down in Lawrence v. Texas, legal same-sex marriage was an inevitability because it made no sense to continue denying a government-issued license to consenting adults of sound body and mind based on a general animus toward a legal activity.

[aligncare]

But marriage is not necessary for those who use medical power of attorney. The sword cuts both ways.

Touché! Jim.

[Bigun]

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,173504.msg682317.html#msg682317

"Justice Kennedy’s opinion was nine parts romantic poetry and one part legal analysis (if that)." -- David French


I agree with Mr. French

[Luis Gonzalez]

I want to marry, but I don't have that choice, so your logic is just as full of BS.

Translation: you don't want to can't rebut it.

[mountaineer]

adults of sound body and mind

A reminder that homosexual attraction used to be considered a mental illness. Who might be of sound mind could be debated.

[jmyrlefuller]

Translation: you don't want to can't rebut it.

Translation: you're just going to ignore the first half of the sentence. I've heard of selective hearing, but this is ridiculous.

Marriage is an inherently discriminatory practice. If we accept marriage, we must recognize the purpose of it. It's not just to consummate some form of nebulous concept of "love," but a union between the two sides of the human species. If we cannot do that, then we're treating people with partners differently under the law than those who can't have them, a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

[jmyrlefuller]

A reminder that homosexual attraction used to be considered a mental illness. Who might be of sound mind could be debated.

The co-occurrence of the two phenomena, homosexuality and mental illness, is well-attested, so yes, that's true.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Touché! Jim.

Which makes a homosexual some sort of second rate citizen based on their engaging in a legal activity and lifestyle.

There are man privileges and immunities automatically available to married couples that are not accessible to unmarried couples, via any legal document other than a marriage license.

Among them are:

Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings.

Unmarried couples denied are access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs.

Unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.

Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage.

If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, or to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner.

I don't get the animus.

People outside my marriage getting married or divorced or opting to live together without the benefit of marriage have zero impact on my marriage and family life. It "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" that homosexuals get married.

Why the animus toward a group of people who actually want to be married during a period of time in our culture when those who CAN marry are opting not to do so in ever increasing numbers and when almost 45% of all children are born out of wedlock?

If we are really all that concerned about preserving and "saving" traditional marriage, why aren't we addressing the issues with traditional marriage?

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" - Mathew 7:3

[Luis Gonzalez]

Translation: you're just going to ignore the first half of the sentence. I've heard of selective hearing, but this is ridiculous.

Besides, sometimes basic biology prevents us from having what we want.

Just as you ignored the substance of the post.

[Luis Gonzalez]

A reminder that homosexual attraction used to be considered a mental illness. Who might be of sound mind could be debated.

Do you know any homosexuals?

[jmyrlefuller]

Which makes a homosexual some sort of second rate citizen based on their engaging in a legal activity and lifestyle.

Only made legal by the same Supreme Court Justice's writing 12 years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, which started this whole mess.

There are man privileges and immunities automatically available to married couples that are not accessible to unmarried couples, via any legal document other than a marriage license.

Among them are:

Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings.

Unmarried couples denied are access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs.

Unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.

Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage.

If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, or to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner.

All things I, as a single person, will never be able to access. Thus, marriage is inherently discriminatory, as I said.

I don't get the animus.

People outside my marriage getting married or divorced or opting to live together without the benefit of marriage have zero impact on my marriage and family life. It "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" that homosexuals get married.

Why the animus toward a group of people who actually want to be married during a period of time in our culture when those who CAN marry are opting not to do so in ever increasing numbers and when almost 45% of all children are born out of wedlock?

If we are really all that concerned about preserving and "saving" traditional marriage, why aren't we addressing the issues with traditional marriage?

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" - Mathew 7:3

Who said we weren't? I see these problems all the time: people get together, have kids, then split up without any regard. Bristol Palin is only one of the many who do it. Of course it's a problem. It does need to be addressed. But at least we acknowledge that fault. At least I'd hope.

[jmyrlefuller]

Do you know any homosexuals?

I do, and there is truth to it.

[mountaineer]

Do you know any homosexuals?

Yes. And I love them. So what?