Thread: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Successfully Petitioned to Re-hear Prop. 8 Ruling

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

Translation: Now that the ACTUAL Constitutional position on marriage (it is ENTIRELY THE COMMUNITY'S AUTHORITY) has been quoted, it's time to feign "arrogant superiority" since their ENTIRE ARGUMENT has just went down in flames...again.

Society HAS THE RIGHT, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, to define marriage, and we will continue to do so, exercising our RIGHT to CRUSH YOU AT THE BALLOT BOX...again,and again.

Don't worry; they'll just wait we leave,and then start right in with the same lies again...it's the Leftninny Way....

And in a republic (which is what The United States Of America is), a constitution will overrule the tyranny of majority that tries to enforce its rule on the minority.

So, you can define marriage all you want, as long as its constitutional, which marriage is currently not.

Originally Posted by texmaster

Really. Please cite in the Constitution where it states that. Anywhere. Go ahead.

And yet laws do discriminate every day about human behaviors...not "religion", "gender/sex[.n]", "race" or "ethnic origin".

There's gonna need to be an Amendment to get "a few specific sexual fetish behaviors only" as = "race" as a protected "class". A whole new "class" has to be created in the Constitution.

Isn't that a 2/3rds majority issue?

Originally Posted by Silhouette

And yet laws do discriminate every day about human behaviors...not "religion", "gender/sex[.n]", "race" or "ethnic origin".

There's gonna need to be an Amendment to get "a few specific sexual fetish behaviors only" as = "race" as a protected "class". A whole new "class" has to be created in the Constitution.

Isn't that a 2/3rds majority issue?

Murder, rape, theft is violated someone elses rights.

Please do explain how gay marriage is violating peoples rights.

Originally Posted by texmaster

Way to completely FAIL in answering my question.

By your moronic expansion of that law no one from any sexual preference could be denied state recognized marriage. Typical liberal. Feel first think later.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. <----answerd your question.

You just cant handle the answer ro you throw ad homs instead.

[quote]

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

Utter nonsense. Loving v Virginia was about RACE...;period.

it was about denying a basic civil right based on race. you can't deny that right based on gender either.

there is no Constitutional protection for genital preference.

strawman. nobody here is talking about a preference.

The COMMUNITY regulates marriage.Period.

no, laws do.

Originally Posted by Silhouette

And yet laws do discriminate every day about human behaviors...not "religion", "gender/sex[.n]", "race" or "ethnic origin".

There's gonna need to be an Amendment to get "a few specific sexual fetish behaviors only" as = "race" as a protected "class". A whole new "class" has to be created in the Constitution.

Isn't that a 2/3rds majority issue?

this strawman is a tired one. nobody is talking about a fetish or behavior.

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

No, it's not; it's ultimately about what the majority of the people in our society want to be defined as "marriage", and we have been VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT, whenever it appears on the ballot.

Not calling your civil union the name "marriage" costs you NOTHING; there are NO RIGHTS denied under a civil union.

We ,as a People, have the right to define marriage, even if it upsets a militant minority of gays. Who gives a crap?

It's OUR TURN to be "OFFENDED"....the militant minority of Gay Guevaras DOES NOT have the RIGHT to FORCE THEIR "DEFINITION" DOWN OUR THROATS...got it?

We will continue to CRUSH YOU at the ballot box, and slowly , but surely, weed out the gay activist judges who think that they can DICTATE THEIR PERSONAL WILL to We, the People...

Using the law to disrespect people you have a problem with seems costly to me cost liberty and blocks the pursuit of happiness for some for no reason

Then you would say that was nothing wrong with bans on interracial marriage so long as most people wanted it. Because its wrong for people to try and change the definition of marriage to include a white and black couple

and that marriage can be taken away for any of us by the will of the people for any or no reason

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

I don't have to just make up emotional nonsense, like " a civil union, can never equal marriage"..

PLease cite the difference between a civil union , and marriage , in terms of ACTUAL RIGHTS,and specify the state you refer to. There are NONE.

We the People, we decide what "marriage" is in our society; if you disagree...leave, or beat us at the ballot box.

I'm batting 1.000 on that one alone...

Your counting on civil unions not being = to marriage you go on and on about how the masses should control marriage and according to you they don’t want gays included in gay relationships

if you really want them to be = you would just let gay marriage happen

Originally Posted by JIMV

The government has the power to call anything anything and enforce it...They can call a dog a cat and make the new names enforceable under the law but everyone looking at either the dog or cat will still know which is which...

Forcing folk to pretend gay marriage is marriage in any accepted sense will simply result on surface obedience and hidden dismay.

Domestic partners in most states have the same legal rights as the married...they are legally the same...yet the left still wants the use of the word 'marriage' forced onto society...good luck with that.

um the same kind of union with the same kind of perks that is marriage im not the one playing fetch with my cat hear

i guess having a hetero sexual only and homosexual only restroom would be treating people the same

or having restaurants only seat heterosexuals sit in them while homosexuals have to just get take out is fair and equal because everyone can get the same kind of food