Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

View Poll Results: Is discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation wrong?
Yes, it is morally wrong 10 15.87%
Yes, it is morally and legally wrong 32 50.79%
No, its not morally wrong 0 0%
No, its not morally or legally wrong 10 15.87%
Yes, its legally wrong but morally right 0 0%
Yes, its morally wrong but still legal to discriminate 7 11.11%
Put me down for the GAZ option 4 6.35%
Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-25-2013, 07:51 PM  
BigRedChief BigRedChief is offline
Brainwashed
 
BigRedChief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Swims with fishes
Casino cash: $18426
VARSITY
Is discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation wrong?

I've never had a publicly gay friend, family member or co-worker. I have no experience with anyone being discriminated against for being gay. I can't understand the concept of male wanting to have sex with another male.

But, I don't have to understand it. Whatever two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of my business.

I believe that discriminating against someone only because of their sexual orientation is wrong and is/should be constitutionally protected.
Posts: 44,835
BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 07:03 PM   #91
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedChief View Post
The SCOTUS has ruled many times that marriage is a right as a citizen. The SCOTUS should be consistent. How can they rule that it is a right but not for homosexuals?
How many of those rulings have you read? Should I consider you an authority on what was meant by each of those rulings?
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 07:07 PM   #92
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedChief View Post
You can make the same point linking porn to a free speech right written 200+ years ago. The 2nd amendment currently protecting 100 round clips for a right guaranteed in a time of muskets. etc.etc.
No, you really can't. It's not like homosexuality was non-existent in the 1800s.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 07:09 PM   #93
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
How many of those rulings have you read? Should I consider you an authority on what was meant by each of those rulings?
BTW, not only am I confident you haven't read any of them and I'm certain you can' speak authoritatively on them, I also reject your theory about what those cases mean.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 07:12 PM   #94
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
Bless FSU!
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $22825
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
BTW, not only am I confident you haven't read any of them and I'm certain you can' speak authoritatively on them, I also reject your theory about what those cases mean.
I was thinking the same thing and it was probably a prog who posted them with the same misunderstandings.
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution

“We do not believe in aggressive or preventive war. Such war is the weapon of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States.”~ Truman, Sept 1, 1950
Posts: 59,766
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 07:13 PM   #95
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $9250
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Marriage+as+a+fundamental+right

Marriage as a fundamental right
The United States Supreme Court has in at least 14 cases since 1888 ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. These cases are:[36]
Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) Marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man” and “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974) “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977) “[i]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

/seriously that took all of five seconds to do
//freaking lazy you are
Posts: 4,199
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 07:19 PM   #96
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
I was thinking the same thing and it was probably a prog who posted them with the same misunderstandings.
It was go bowe.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,744
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 07:34 PM   #97
BigRedChief BigRedChief is offline
Brainwashed
 
BigRedChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Swims with fishes
Casino cash: $18426
VARSITY
Since when did you have to be constitutional lawyer to have an opinion? Just because you have or not read a legal brief is not the reason you are allowed to have an opinion.

I don't have to read legal briefs to know that discrimination against citizens, separating out a group of fellow citizens for discrimination is wrong.

I like Scalia's question today, "when did it become unconstitutional?"

IMHO, Just like not allowing women to vote, discrimination against blacks, slavery, 3/5ths of a person............ it should have been unconstitutional on day one of the republic.
__________________
If you don't have a seat at the table, you're probably on the menu
Posts: 44,835
BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 07:38 PM   #98
theelusiveeightrop theelusiveeightrop is online now
Spiraling down the Drain
 
theelusiveeightrop's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Dante's Ninth Circle
Casino cash: $12350
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedChief View Post
Since when did you have to be constitutional lawyer to have an opinion? Just because you have or not read a legal brief is not the reason you are allowed to have an opinion.

I don't have to read legal briefs to know that discrimination against citizens, separating out a group of fellow citizens for discrimination is wrong.

I like Scalia's question today, "when did it become unconstitutional?"

IMHO, Just like not allowing women to vote, discrimination against blacks, slavery, 3/5ths of a person............ it should have been unconstitutional on day one of the republic.
That 3/5 ths of a person deal was terrific. Gubment at its finest.
__________________
"We're both part of the same hypocrisy, Senator, but never think it applies to my family."

2014 Adopt a Chief - Travis Kelce #87
Posts: 20,335
theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.theelusiveeightrop is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 07:47 PM   #99
BigRedChief BigRedChief is offline
Brainwashed
 
BigRedChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Swims with fishes
Casino cash: $18426
VARSITY
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
BTW, not only am I confident you haven't read any of them and I'm certain you can' speak authoritatively on them, I also reject your theory about what those cases mean.
You can remain ignorant by choice, I guess.

Ask any lawyer, is marriage a right as defined by the SCOTUS?
__________________
If you don't have a seat at the table, you're probably on the menu
Posts: 44,835
BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 08:00 PM   #100
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
Bless FSU!
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $22825
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedChief View Post
Since when did you have to be constitutional lawyer to have an opinion? Just because you have or not read a legal brief is not the reason you are allowed to have an opinion.
I actually agree, because it's an opinion. But you made some statements of fact.

Quote:
I don't have to read legal briefs to know that discrimination against citizens, separating out a group of fellow citizens for discrimination is wrong.
No, because but what you don't recognize is that this is YOUR moral code. Anyone can think anything they want is wrong. Some of us just don't think every wrong should be made illegal.

Quote:
I like Scalia's question today, "when did it become unconstitutional?"
Perhaps, he meant it's a state matter and not a federal matter.

Quote:
IMHO, Just like not allowing women to vote, discrimination against blacks, slavery, 3/5ths of a person............ it should have been unconstitutional on day one of the republic.
Then we'd still be under the Articles of Confederation and have no Constitution at all. Values don't change overnight.
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution

“We do not believe in aggressive or preventive war. Such war is the weapon of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States.”~ Truman, Sept 1, 1950
Posts: 59,766
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 08:02 PM   #101
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
Bless FSU!
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $22825
Quote:
Originally Posted by theelusiveeightrop View Post
That 3/5 ths of a person deal was terrific. Gubment at its finest.
Well, yeah but some people wanted more govt back then too. Like the ones arguing for more central govt control today.
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution

“We do not believe in aggressive or preventive war. Such war is the weapon of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States.”~ Truman, Sept 1, 1950
Posts: 59,766
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 08:07 PM   #102
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
Bless FSU!
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $22825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Marriage+as+a+fundamental+right

Marriage as a fundamental right
The United States Supreme Court has in at least 14 cases since 1888 ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. These cases are:[36]
Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) Marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man” and “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974) “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977) “[i]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

/seriously that took all of five seconds to do
//freaking lazy you are
Oh boy, then this is why they actually struck down state's issuing licenses right? Things that make you go hmmmmmm. I still don't see any federalization of marriage here.

Furthermore, the cases much earlier cases, marriage was still defined as being between a man and a woman, which is what they were talking about. Griswold was a privacy issue and I say should have remained a state issue under the Tenth Amendment. It was another milestone on the way to destroying federalism and the original document. Skinner talks about the survival of the race so that's obviously about marriage being defined between a man and a woman. Boddie doesn't use the word "right" based on what you posted here anyway. Loving vs Virginia was a proper application of the 14th Amendment which was written for black people. It was later expanded despite denials by it's promoters it ever would in the manner all your other cases listed do.

Lawrence v Texas was judicial activism because the federal congress didn't pass any law on sodomy. But this usurpation is considered the stepping stone to federalization of marriage unfortunately.

The case your side is making, along with the homosexual lobby, ( since some of them don't care about marriage because being homosexual is about sexual liberation) is the right to be married by the state. State's require licenses still. It wasn't always that way though. So if there's a right to marry, then the argument should be for abolishing licenses because they contradict this as a freedom. But then it's a private matter.


A welfare state prog calling someone lazy...oh the irony.
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution

“We do not believe in aggressive or preventive war. Such war is the weapon of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States.”~ Truman, Sept 1, 1950

Last edited by BucEyedPea; 03-26-2013 at 08:50 PM..
Posts: 59,766
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 08:20 PM   #103
ClevelandBronco ClevelandBronco is offline
Banned
 
ClevelandBronco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2006
Casino cash: $9805
There are certain situations in which I'd feel comfortable discriminating against a gay person. For instance, my first impulse would be to seek out another therapist or counsellor if I found out that the one that was treating me was gay.
Posts: 20,597
ClevelandBronco has disabled reputation
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 08:23 PM   #104
chiefzilla1501 chiefzilla1501 is offline
Gonzo = Sexy Bitch
 

Join Date: Aug 2008
Casino cash: $15836
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
Oh boy, then this is why they actually struck down state's issuing licenses right? Things that make you go hmmmmmm. I still don't see any federalization of marriage here. Furthermore, the cases much earlier cases, marriage was still defined as being between a man and a woman and were still state laws.

Lawrence v Texas was judicial activism because the federal congress didn't pass any law on sodomy. But this usurpation is considered the stepping stone to federalization of marriage unfortunately.

I'll read them later as I have to take a call. It's still not a right though because it requires consent of another person.
Married couples receive federal benefits and rights. I'm still trying to figure out why we continue to suggest this isn't a federal issue. Are you suggesting that if you get married legally in Missouri, then move to Kansas where gay marriage is banned, that you should then be stripped of those federal benefits? That in that case, the state's ruling trumps federal law?
Posts: 21,471
chiefzilla1501 threw an interception on a screen pass.chiefzilla1501 threw an interception on a screen pass.chiefzilla1501 threw an interception on a screen pass.chiefzilla1501 threw an interception on a screen pass.chiefzilla1501 threw an interception on a screen pass.chiefzilla1501 threw an interception on a screen pass.chiefzilla1501 threw an interception on a screen pass.chiefzilla1501 threw an interception on a screen pass.chiefzilla1501 threw an interception on a screen pass.chiefzilla1501 threw an interception on a screen pass.chiefzilla1501 threw an interception on a screen pass.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 08:25 PM   #105
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
Bless FSU!
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $22825
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 View Post
Married couples receive federal benefits and rights. I'm still trying to figure out why we continue to suggest this isn't a federal issue.
Married couples receive "rights"? From the federal govt? Such as? I didn't know rights came from the federal govt. I thought they preceded govts.

Why is it NOT a federal issue? It's in the post on Federalist #45. I support the Constitution envisioned by our Framers—not the one re-written on rubber during the Prog Era where the penumbras extend to Timbuktu.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that if you get married legally in Missouri, then move to Kansas where gay marriage is banned, that you should then be stripped of those federal benefits? That in that case, the state's ruling trumps federal law?
I don't agree with any federal govt subsidies for marriage. Benefits are not a right either. I've not seen that word in the Constitution either.
That's a welfare state defense.
__________________
“The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.” ~ James Madison, Father of the Constitution

“We do not believe in aggressive or preventive war. Such war is the weapon of dictators, not of free democratic countries like the United States.”~ Truman, Sept 1, 1950

Last edited by BucEyedPea; 03-26-2013 at 08:34 PM..
Posts: 59,766
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:22 PM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.