Civil rights are NOT up for a vote. California voters rights were NOT violated

This is a continuation of this thread:

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...ple-california-struck-down-supreme-court.html

However, the OP of the original thread was in error.

Civil rights are not up for a vote, so the 'rights' of California voters was NOT violated.

I never said they cant marry, show me a post where I said they can't marry. Now its on the old bait and switch move eh? Lets not comprehend something, then because you cant comprehend it, lets CLAIM someone said something or doesn't believe something.

The only restriction we should have on marriage is that all parties must be of legal age to consent to marriage. There is no legal or constitutional reason to deny consenting the adults the right to marry.

Having said that, you dixon76710 are coming from an angel where you simply wont acknowledge that a gay relationship should have equal rights as a heterosexual relationship. So you bring up a mother- daughter combo who is raising child as an absurd example. You have asked what the difference between a gay relationship and a mother-daughter relationship is. I explained what the difference is, only for to resort to saying "rubbing genitals"..A.K.A. the typical homophobe response that homosexuality is ONLY about sex. Nothing but pure IGNORANCE here.

Your side lost in court. Gay marriage is here to stay. Deal with it.

 

There is NO "civil right" to genital preference. Anywhere.

 

you nailed it

 

Really? So, since you claim no right to prefer certain genitals over others you would be fine if the government mandated who you could have sex with? And who you had to marry? After all, you have no rights in said regard according to you. So I assume that would be fine. Is that part of your "small government" agenda?

 

The courts consistantly call bull(*)(*)(*)(*) in that statement

 

so, as a male, if I prefer receiving penis over delivering to vagina then that is a civil right?

 

Marriage is a civil right.

 

Yep.........

 

Where does the Constitution say marriage is a right?

 

14th amendment, since the government hands out 1400 rights/benefits for marriage.

 

I juts read that amendment. Nowhere was the word 'marriage' to be found.

 

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Allowing group A to obtain the 1400 rights/privileges/benefits that come with marriage while saying group B cannot, is not equal protection under the laws.

It takes a little bit of thought process here. Give it a try.

 

The word "gun" isn't found in the 2nd Amendment, so I guess the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect guns.

 

Allowing 9 people in black robes to define civil rights isn't the purpose of the court and it isn't their right to do it. California's case should never have been heard by the court, much less ruled on in such an non-judicial manner.

 

then let's hear your argument for why the court was wrong on the voting rights act....

 

The word arms is interchangeable with the word guns. Try again. If you can find a word in the 14th Amendment that is common usage for marriage, I'll concur with you though.

 

Marriage is a form of legal contract and the 14 th amendment deals with equal protection for all legal actions.

 

Please locate and highlight the word "group" in the 14th. thnxsomuch

 

So you can't find marriage or a synonym in the 14th Amendment. Got it.

Hey! Don't get pissed at me! I'm not the one who set up the false analogy.

 

You may not like it, but you're wrong. See "Lawrence v. Texas" in addition to the DOMA case last week.

Ya mad, bro?

 

Absurd

Come back when you have something that isn't so Absurd.

 

Then you should abolish all marriage laws because they are unfair to people who aren't married. And they are unfair to people who wish to be in other types of marriages. So stop your bigoted defense of the Gay agenda and start promoting the abolishment of all marriage laws.

 

Did you even read the Supreme Court ruling? They said that the people that brought the suit didn't have standing enough to do so, that's all. Nothing precludes another challenge from folks that do! Deal with it.

I counter your foregone conclusion with a statement from Yogi Berra......"It ain't over till it's over"........and it ain't over yet.

 

Good luck on that. As soon as you can get the majority of heterosexual married couples to give up the 1400 rights/privileges, then we'll talk.

Until then you are just blowing smoke into the wind.

- - - Updated - - -

The haters in California have been denied a stay, and gay couples have been free to marry once again in California. Its over.

 

A joke thread, and that's being kind. You are claiming that the matter is settled so there is no need to go to court to settle the matter.