Hello:

I TOLD you dozens, and dozens of times, that you can't vote away someones Constitutional rights. You didn't believe me, so you did it anyway. But, in the last two months alone, your efforts at banning gay marriage have been struck DOWN by federal judges in SIX states.

When are you gonna start listening to me??

excon

And they've all been stayed. It will go to SCOTUS.

Where is gay marriage stated in the Constitution?

They aren't listening Ex, so just relax, sit back, grab some popcorn, and roll yourself a fat doob. Enjoy the show because they are running out of stuff to look stupid about.

Jindal: GOP must "stop being the stupid party" | Watch the video - Yahoo TV (http://tv.yahoo.com/video/jindal-gop-must-stop-being-180114630-cbs.html)

Then a year later, he gets a stupid as the rest of them,

Bobby Jindal Gives Up, Joins the 'Stupid Party' - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/25/bobby-jindal-gives-up-joins-the-stupid-party.html)


After four years of failed debuts on the national stage, Jindal hopes that this “war” against “elites” will give his political career meaning. And this might play well with conservatives who have a persecution complex. For everyone else—including most American believers—it falls flat.
Which is to say, if “Jindal 2016” were a race horse, I wouldn’t just hedge my bets—I’d buy shares in the glue factory.


Where is gay marriage stated in the Constitution?

Where is straight marriage in the constitution?

Where is straight marriage in the constitution?It isn't, it's not mentioned even once.

So, we are now taking a prism to the Constitution and bending it our current beliefs. When the ACTUAL Constitution was written there were no open homosexuals. I get that this is about discrimination, and I'm not either for, nor against, gay marriage. I just don't see how the Constitution comes into play.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... You are going to whine about discrimination. I know that.

Hello J:

I just don't see how the Constitution comes into play.It's simple, really. If marriage didn't come with rights, then marriage would strictly BE a religious matter. But, it does. And, the 14th Amendment says, "... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You get that, right?

excon

None of this brouha would be an issue if 200 years ago the states and federal government didn't adopt so many laws involving one's marital status but had rather adopted the same laws using "civil unions" instead. That way "marriage" would have stayed a religous concept and "civil union" would be the legal concept. But that shipped sailed years ago. So now we're stuck, like it or not, with "marriage" being used both for religous purposes and for legal purposes. And consequently we're arriving at a place where same sex couples must be allowed to marry so they may enjoy the same protections and benefits as straight couples. The only other solution is to abolish any and all benefits that the various governments afford to married persons - from tax status to inheritance rights to social security benefits to the rights make medical decisions - but that ain't gonna happen. So we're stuck - it's only a matter of time. But it shouldn't matter to any married person whether the gay couple living next door is legally married or not - it doesn't detract from your marriage and it causes you no burden - so stop yer whining!

ex, what your missing is that the law was clearly defined and then there has been this big explosion to blur the lines of that definition. Since we are a nation of law we need to define the law so boundries are created.

There was still the path of civil union and they as a group made a choice not to elevate it to the same status as what traditional married couples enjoyed. Instead they chose to redefine the law to fit their world. If we hold that concept high then you can see that all laws could be twisted and we would end up with no laws at all.

If we hold that concept high then you can see that all laws could be twisted and we would end up with no laws at all.

Kind of like POTUS (http://freebeacon.com/liberal-prof-obama-has-brought-us-to-constitutional-tipping-point/) does.

Ebaines has the right of this one. I have a piece of paper from the State that says my wife is my next of kin. Churches have been doing that since they were the State. Now we have Churches and a separate State. We still only have one piece of paper. This is the problem. As my wife just pointed out to me, the attempts at different pieces of paper have turned into bureaucratic revenue sources with eleventy seventeen hoops to jump through.

Possibly turning the process around and getting a "Wedding Certificate" or some such from the Churches would cause less hassle than "Civil Unions" from the State.

The US Constitution as it was actually written before judges who decided to write law, not merely rule on it, had a separation of State and Federal Government.

Marriage is not a Federal law, now is it a right for straight or gay people, It is merely a state law. The Federal government using the "equal protection" clause has ruled on many state laws, it has no business ruling on.

Actually by the Constitution the power of enacting any law not specifically covered under the Constitution is a right of the state.

So by the Constitution the state is correct in making such laws since there was never and still is no official protection status. Gay right advocates are trying and with success to use the equal right clause to get courts to rule against the will of the majority of the people.

The same aspect could be conceived with the new POT laws, legal now in one area, but now my rights are being restricted, in Georgia I can not legally buy and smoke pot. So why can I not sue, under the equal protection clause. Because the government will say that each state is free to pass and have its own laws, even if they conflict with other states

A majority of Americans don't care if gays can get married and file tax returns or any of the other legal rights granted under the federal law. DOMA was ruled unconstitutional, and many states have gay marriage bans ruled unconstitutional.

Why is it surprising that gay people are demanding the same rights as any other American citizen? Since when did states rights trump federal rights? We fought that war already.

Since when did states rights trump federal rights? We fought that war already.

Apparently you haven't, the constitution doesn't say a lot of things, like you arn't allowed to succeed, but apparently these non provisions selectively remain states rights until there is federal legislation and then you get the challenges

there are no state 'rights' or National government 'rights' .Rights are reserved for the people . Governments only have powers ...in our case ,governments have enumerated powers derived from the consent of the governed. Now the left see's Brewer's veto of SB 1062 as a victory for gay rights . What it really was is a cave in to corporate pressure. I'm sure that makes the left proud . The fact is that 18 States AND the national government have variations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA) . Arizona's rewrite of their already existing law just brought it closer to the existing national law....and that says nothing about businesses having permission to discriminate. All it said was that the business owner could use a religious liberty defense in cases where they were accused of discrimination. In other words ,the law protected the merchant's rights and did not legislate anyone else's rights away.

The Federal government using the "equal protection" clause has ruled on many state laws, it has no business ruling on.
You mean the imperial courts . Even when the people of the state (like California) had a definition of marriage ,the imperial courts have overturned it . DOMA Sec 3 was ruled unconstitutional ;but Sec 2 (states have the power to define marriage ) was retained .

So if a state votes to go back to banning inter racial marriage that's cool to I assume?

Hello again, tom;

states have the power to define marriageIt's true. But, if there are RIGHTS attached to marriage, the 14th Amendment comes into play. You CAN'T give ONE group of citizens RIGHTS, and deny them to another...

You get that, right?

excon

We should give the Mormons their rights to Polygamy back as well then... thats unconstitutionsal as well to keep them from having as many wives as they want.

It's their strongly held religious belief isn't it? You guys are big on YOUR religious beliefs. Not so much anyone else's. A harem of gay people would blow your mind wouldn't it? That's why I mentioned it. :)

It's their strongly held religious belief isn't it? You guys are big on YOUR religious beliefs. Not so much anyone else's.

That's odd because I was the one defending a Muslim photgrapher's right to refuse to shoot a gay wedding.


A harem of gay people would blow your mind wouldn't it? That's why I mentioned it. :)

Don't worry, that will be next, along with NAMBLA's push to allow an old pervert to marry a 13 year old boy.

So if a state votes to go back to banning inter racial marriage that's cool to I assume?

No ,that was real discrimination. The definition of marriage is defined as between a man and women . As far as rights goes ,I have no issue with gay unions getting equal rights under the law as marriage rights. That satisfies the 14th amendment any way you slice and dice it . Marriage means much more than legal contracts .

Hello again, dad and tom:

There was still the path of civil union and they as a group made a choice not to elevate it to the same status as what traditional married couples enjoyed. Instead they chose to redefine the law to fit their world.
As far as rights goes ,I have no issue with gay unions getting equal rights under the law as marriage rights. "THEY" (as in gay people) didn't choose the path NOT to elevate civil unions to the same status as marriage.. It was the LEGISLATURES.. IF any of them had ACTUALLY passed laws that gave civil unions the SAME rights that marriage would have, civil unions MIGHT have worked. Certainly, there would be NO 14th Amendment challenge available... But, NONE of them, and that includes the FEDERAL legislature, DID that.

You wanted ALL the marbles, and now you got NONE. Bummer for you guys.

excon

"They" had their chance. So far as I remember it is still "we the people" that can make laws and vote for changes to the system. Are you saying that in skipping over that path and going through the courts it was the only choice they had or was it just another knife in societies back ? The gays have a specific agenda and they have been pressing it for some time.

Face it, the only way any minority EVER gets anything is to push their agenda and fight for their rights. Why are gays any different? The court is a good battle ground and acceptable venue for a fair fight. State legislatures sure ain't.

Gays are people too, but not covered under "WE the people"?

So changing a legal definition isnt a problem for you ? In doing so it opens a pandoras box. What you are left with is law without definition. If your comfortable with that then please dont try to define the laws to your eyes. Remember someone somewhere will always be hurt by some law. Why not just throw them all out?

Hello again, dad:

Are you saying that in skipping over that path and going through the courts it was the only choice they had or was it just another knife in societies back ? The gays have a specific agenda and they have been pressing it for some time.When they TOOK that path, the people voted it down. Therefore, the ONLY way was through the courts. You DO understand, don't you, that the people CANNOT vote out other peoples RIGHTS?? Hence, the title of my thread.

Actually, I DON'T think you do. I dunno WHY. The 14th Amendment is crystal clear on the issue. That's why you're LOSING in the courts.

If their "agenda" was to achieve EQUALITY, then I SUPPORT it.

To your last point, whether society feels that the spread of freedom is a "knife" in their back, remains to be seen.

excon

Hello again, dad:

So changing a legal definition isnt a problem for you ?Nahhh... If the legal definition is WRONG, it MUST be changed... You know, like marijuana is legally defined as a schedule one drug, and EVERYBODY knows that's wrong.

excon

So what it really boisl down to is that sexual orientation is above the law correct? The rights of others wasnt being denied it was being defined. The fact that the law was defined as marriage being between a man and a woman was a problem for them. Mow the way it is a marriage can be between any persons and anythings. Hope that works for you.

Hello again, dad:
Nahhh... If the legal definition is WRONG, it MUST be changed... You know, like marijuana is legally defined as a schedule one drug, and EVERYBODY knows that's wrong.

excon

The changing of classifications of drugs has a long recorded history in this country and it is clearly defined. Many drugs have had it changed well before pot. The problem with pot was that it had a economic affect and that is why they went after it. It was legal up until the 1920's.

The fact that the law was defined as marriage being between a man and a womanCan you cite that law please?

Changing the definition of marriage may make you mad, but doesn't hurt you. Also by definition, marriage doesn't work so good half the time. Even with the monetary benefit.

Admit it. You don't want gays or any other minority to have what you have, without YOUR permission. Then you can holler how bad they are and define them to stroke your own ego, and keep 'em out of YOUR society. How can you be mad when anybody fights for their rights? That's the American way... sue the suckers.

Fighting change may slow it down, but won't stop it.

Can you cite that law please?

Look up DOMA ( Defense of Marriage Act )

Plus many states followed suit and added simaler laws to their books.

Changing the definition of marriage may make you mad, but doesn't hurt you. Also by definition, marriage doesn't work so good half the time. Even with the monetary benefit.

Admit it. You don't want gays or any other minority to have what you have, without YOUR permission. Then you can holler how bad they are and define them to stroke your own ego, and keep 'em out of YOUR society. How can you be mad when anybody fights for their rights? That's the American way... sue the suckers.

Fighting change may slow it down, but won't stop it.

So if my Church were to disappear or my favorite bakery would go out of business then thats not a direct harm to me now is it? Lets face it. Im for eaqual rights when those rights belong to a acceptable way of running a society. I may object to it and am free to speak my mind about it. But I grow tired of expanding rights where they do not belong. It is killing off society.

Hello again, dad:

Let's take 'em one at a time.

1. Well, of course, you went off the deep end. Gay marriage being legal does NOT mean you can marry your desk. (Psssst, it takes BOTH people to agree to a contract.) Your HORSE can't agree. Your DESK can't agree. CHILDREN can't agree.. Only another PERSON can agree.

2. Sexual orientation is NOT the issue... EQUAL rights is the issue. Like I said earlier, if you'd GIVEN gay's the exact same rights you give to married people and called it CIVIL UNIONS, nobody would have changed the definition of marriage.. You HAD your chance to DO that. You blew it.

3. The fact that the law defines marijuana as a schedule one drug, DOES cause a problem for ME, and it should for YOU too.

excon

Hello again, dad:

Let's take 'em one at a time.

1. Well, of course, you went off the deep end. Gay marriage being legal does NOT mean you can marry your desk. (Psssst, it takes BOTH people to agree to a contract.) Your HORSE can't agree. Your DESK can't agree. CHILDREN can't agree.. Only another PERSON can agree.

2. Sexual orientation is NOT the issue... EQUAL rights is the issue. Like I said earlier, if you'd GIVEN gay's the exact same rights you give to married people and called it CIVIL UNIONS, nobody would have changed the definition of marriage.. You HAD your chance to DO that. You blew it.

3. The fact that the law defines marijuana as a schedule one drug, DOES cause a problem for ME, and it should for YOU too.

excon



1) Without definition then yes an adult can marry a child. Also an adult can marry an animal if they choose. Is your only basis for marriage that being a legal contract like buying a car?


2) Nothing was blown on my part. Can you show where anywhere in the U.S. they had a vote on granting civil unions the same rights? They didnt bother trying to redefine the definition and responsibilities of civil unions. Somehow they skipped right over it.

3) I didnt define nor vote on the laws surrounding marijuana. I actually beleive all drugs should be legal. Right now as it stands the police profit more then the drug dealers on the "War on Drugs" and are very smug about it. It is in the systems hands and they arent likely to let it go anytime soon without a revolution of voter turn out in mass.

Hello again, dad:

First off, I dunno who THEY are. I fought for gay rights, and I'm NOT gay. But, I guess I'm included in "they". But, you're NOT talking about me.. You're talking about what you THINK gay people think. I'll bet you learned how gay people think in CHURCH... That's NOT a good place to learn your politics.

You're just FLAT OUT WRONG on your assertion that we can now marry our refrigerator.. Here's the law, but I'm embarrassed that I have to explain it to an adult person. No MATTER how marriage is defined, a CONTRACT is CLEARLY defined, and your refrigerator CAN'T sign a contract, and they can't buy a car either...

excon

I only speak from the experience point of observation. I saw it early on in the aids crisis. From there it has branched into a movement. From redeining marriage then you could also eliminate the need for a mutual contract. That is simaler thing as an arranged marriage. If the government holds no interest in marriage then all laws surrounding its definition can and should be changed. Isnt that how the system is suppose to work?

I dont get my news from drudge. I have many sources including personal ones. I know how media works. There is a tendency to twist what is news and spit it out as truth.

Hello again, dad:

Yeah... I removed the reference to Drudge.. You didn't deserve it.

I dunno WHAT you're saying that we can do NOW that we couldn't before... In legal terms, a marriage hasn't changed a bit.. Not one iota. What's CHANGED is the people who can AVAIL themselves of it.

You know, like letting black people go to integrated schools, did NOT change a school into something else. What changed, was the people who could AVAIL themselves of it.

excon

What Im saying is that it opened the door for change. That change goes well beyond its original intention. Right now there are some legal restrictions on an adult marrying a child. But those restrictions are only minor ones (no pun intended). In changing of the law the marriage contract is very limited in its scope of protection. It will go where it will as it has been let out to any definition that a person feels it should be. Isnt that part of the 14th amendments pursuit of happiness? I find it rather ironic that in todays day and time where government has been sneeking into all aspects of our lives (supposedly for our own good) that they have backed down on one of the most basic interpritations of the law. When you leave the doors open sooner or later someone is bound to walk through it.

I only speak from the experience point of observation. I saw it early on in the aids crisis. From there it has branched into a movement. From redeining marriage then you could also eliminate the need for a mutual contract. That is simaler thing as an arranged marriage. If the government holds no interest in marriage then all laws surrounding its definition can and should be changed. Isnt that how the system is suppose to work?

I dont get my news from drudge. I have many sources including personal ones. I know how media works. There is a tendency to twist what is news and spit it out as truth.

Specifically what are you talking about? My experience says when you define others and what they have a right to, they get pissed and make changes. While you were making DOMA rules you should have been making CIVIL UNION rules. You didn't. Just like when you said in writing we are equal you excluded slaves, women, and poor white guys.

Now you are a victim of losing YOUR society? Well whose fault is that? The ones you exclude, or the ones who ARE excluded? Of course it's the fault of the ones who are not happy with being excluded by your DEFINITION of who has what rights. RIGHT?

Specifically what are you talking about? My experience says when you define others and what they have a right to, they get pissed and make changes. While you were making DOMA rules you should have been making CIVIL UNION rules. You didn't. Just like when you said in writing we are equal you excluded slaves, women, and poor white guys.

Now you are a victim of losing YOUR society? Well whose fault is that? The ones you exclude, or the ones who ARE excluded? Of course it's the fault of the ones who are not happy with being excluded by your DEFINITION of who has what rights. RIGHT?

And where was your voice to make the changes to civil unions? You would first have to define one and then you can define another. That is how the system works. As far as excluding others there are laws about that. It is usually done for medical reasons and public safety. In defining marriage as between a man and a woman it was just that. A definition. If you are so inclusive then why not give marriage rights to poligymists and to adult child relationships? After all by forbidding it arent you being the person you are accusing others of being? I never had a problem with civil unions being elevated. It kept a clear line within the law. Now all of that is out the window. If you think that is a win win then you are entitled to your opinion.

Hello again, dad:

If you are so inclusive then why not give marriage rights to poligymists and to adult child relationships?Let's review, shall we?

In the eyes of the law, a marriage is FIRST and FOREMOST, a contract. WHO can enter into it, is the issue. Children CANNOT enter into contracts. That is just so. It appears that you DON'T believe me. Would you tell me why?

As long as adults want to marry each other, I have no problem with polygamy. I BELIEVE in the 1st Amendment.

Please stop that stuff about marrying a lilac, or a fence post.. You sound like smoothy.

excon

Many States currently have laws on the books regulating minors and adults marrying. But as has been stated there were laws on the books definining a marriage. In many states a minor can marry with parental consent. That is for now. There are many cases on the books where a child is treated as an adult. One of them being children that have children. By extension it could be argued that that should also be the case in marriage.

But why do you care if a woman marries her refrigerator?

Hello again, dad:

Let's not argue by extension, or what COULD ensue from these laws.. Let's talk about what IS. And, what IS, is a child can't enter into a contract... Now, if thus and so happened, it could. But, if thus and so happened, we could be dead.

Let me reiterate.. NOBODY is gonna change a law to allow CHILDREN to marry. That would be NOBODY. To think that liberals would LIKE that is a complete misreading of your opposition..

I guess THAT ain't so unusual, though.

excon

ex, what your missing here is that it wasnt that long ago that children did have to get permission for medical procedures. Now in todays time they still do except for abortion. So to say it is a strech just isnt true. Also we have seen in our own system how sharia law has had an impact as well as evaluating and proposing for our law to be like it is in other countries.

That being said I dont trust that our politicians are always going to do the right thing nor do I trust our court systems to do so either. It is all we have but it is quickly reaching a tipping point. Did you imagine in your lifetime that you would see a child sue their parents for support after running away? The world is changing and not all of it is for the good in my opinion. But it is my opinion and Im going to express it as best I can.

proposing for our law to be like it is in other countries.

this is a little backwards, there is no nation on Earth that attemps to impose its laws on the rest of the world like the US, embodied in its treaty proposals and EFT's are deliberate attempts to align the laws of foriegn countries with the US and yet you say you should object to the process flowing the other way, fact is you don't hold the patient on due process and democratic rights. You are correct that sharia law should not be imposed upon you but neither should you try to change the law in Muslim countries, however barbaric you discern it to be

Few too many Victoria Best Bitters tonight?

No smoothy can't drink VB any more besides it comes from south of the border where all the wetbacks live. By the way it is morning, or it was. If i'm a little more lucid it might be this new medication. Makes people vague, they say. No I'm just telling it like it is or calling hypocritical diatribe. We can all learn from each other and it has to be a free process.

What's been going on over there? has the place shut down? all the usual suspects stayed away in droves, I thought they may have been lost for words the list of posts for the last two weeks is getting shorter and shorter

Can't speak for anyone else... but we just got plastered with another snowstorm last night. But that's not going to effect everyone. And I've been really busy with other things. I suspect that's the reason for them too.

THe VB is WAY better than that Fosters swill. Have drank cases of it (the VB) over the years... they don't sell it here... I got it from your Embassy. Your guys have a taste for that, and its pretty decent. I'm sure there is lots better. I know I've had some in the UK having actually spent enough time there, and I know most of them aren't imported here if they are exported at all... but the samplings of your countries brews are quite sparse out my way.

Well if you can get it try Crown but we have so many boutique breweries it has become rediculous, when I say I can't drink it beer causes gout and so must be taken infrequently, but what is in the bottle is inferiour to what is in the keg. Yes the weather is haywire I think we are having a monsoon and we are a little far south for that, still it is the equinox. I spent six weeks on a russian liner with nothing to drink but VB and vodka so I prefer something else. by the way a secret, we make that Fosters "swill" for those who don't know better

I agree... From my own experience... stuff in the Keg is far better than bottles... and those beat cans any day. Had an incredible local unfiltered HeifWiezzen in Munich a couple years ago... actually a couple of them... I typically go for the British style Ales and Stouts.

Same here with the Botique breweries... here we call them Micro Breweries. Had some really good stuff here from time to time.

I don't drink much however... and go weeks without anything stronger than Iced tea frequently.

Hello again,

I LOVE the way you guys talk longingly about BOOZE.. Yet, you'd BOTH throw someone in the slam for smoking pot...

Hypocrites!

excon

Ex what we do is legal, and I don't think someone should be jailed for smoking pot just jailed for the things they do to get it besides I don't get stoned out of my brain by drinking a beer with a meal. You want to talk constitutional rights, your government has the right to regulate access to harmful illicit substances

Smoking pot should be legal too! Goes great after a meal.

You want another excuse to pollute the atmosphere, ex carries on about CO2 but wants to pollute the environment with smoke, give me a break, what a hypocrite

I am sure Ex smokes responsibly, and would you rather have a contact from his smoke, or mesothelioma or cancer from industrial smoke? What part of humans cannot survive with too much CO2 is so hard for you to grasp?

Repeat after me too much CO2 will kill you, and everything else that breathes oxegen. End of this silly debate. Go breath what you want!

tal the question is how much is too much, smoking creates an environment where the concentration is far more than a few partis in a million, I can't smell CO2 but I cough when someone smokes nearby. Industrial pollution isn't CO2 it is the particulates emitted.

tal the question is how much is too much, smoking creates an environment where the concentration is far more than a few partis in a million, I can't smell CO2 but I cough when someone smokes nearby. Industrial pollution isn't CO2 it is the particulates emitted.

All of which are poisonous to humans, and you can't walk away and find fresher air. You can avoid smoke filled rooms though. By the way CO2 IS a byproduct of burning COAL and FOSSIL FUEL. What are you smoking down there?

Hello clete:

You want to talk constitutional rights, your government has the right to regulate access to harmful illicit substancesShow me where it says that.

excon

not smokin anything and we have beautiful clear skys and plenty of oxygen we have been using coal for electricity generation for a long time and it hasn't caused a problem, coal used for home heating causes a problem and we don't do that anymore, but then burning wood does teh same thing and isn't regulated. you see tal there are some sensible restrictions and there are some that are not, declaring CO2 emissions as pollution is a rediculous politically motivated exercise no matter where you live

Not when you have the technology and means to NOT pollute.

Australia should cut emissions by 19 per cent to play fair role: Climate Change Authority report (http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-should-cut-emissions-by-19-per-cent-to-play-fair-role-climate-change-authority-report-20140227-33jim.html)


It found that action being taken by other countries, including China and the US, meant Australia's minimum commitment was out of step with current global efforts.

China has taken steps? When , where, what?