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

Civil rights gained based on RACE do not apply to GENITAL PREFERENCE. Read the Civil Rights Act(s); no mention of sexual preferences...anywhere.

The rules of marriage apply to blacks, whites, gays and straights...EQUALLY.

You just can't get your mind around the glaring Truth of that statement.

 

Why you don’t need an amendment to have your select sexual compulsive fetish behavior considered for protection and privileges alongside "race", "creed", "gender" and "ethnic origin

And you don’t have to call being heterosexual a race either

And homosexuals don’t consider themselves a race

But the truth is we hetero and homosexuals can be divided into separate gropes based on the traits of are sexuality

and we can be discriminated against by which gender we are attracted to

Cut the crap you don’t need someone or some group to be a distinct race to pick on them and you don’t need an amendment passed to see that’s unfair it may be needed to protect people from you and the likes of you though

 

RULES THAT APPLY TO EVERYONE <--- that is your point.

Race, sexuality, etc is just a some screen - a red herring.

Its not my problem you cannot see how retared the statement of 'RULES THAT APPLY TO EVERYONE argument is.

 

Harm/no harm fair/unfair/ consensual/not consensual/
their opposites not similar

Homosexual/heterosexual those are the kind of relationships that can be similar and are being arbitrarily discriminated against

How are 2 men and 2 men or 2 women and 2 woman more likely to be less fair consensual or more harmful in marriage then 1 women and one man?

And if there are other kinds of marriage that are no less fair and no less consensual and do no more harm than a heterosexual marriage between 2 people why should they be banned?

 

Or the glaring irrelevance. A law that required people over 5' 10" to only marry folks under 5' 10" would apply to everyone equally too -- doesn't mean it's necessary, constitutional, or that it's not discriminating based on height.

A law that says same sex couples cannot marry, discriminates against those couples based on their sex. It appears to be no more necessary or constitutional that a height restriction. It obviously discriminates against couples based on their sex (by definition).

And for the record, folks didn't gain civil rights because of their race and no one is asking you to give rights to folks based on their sexual preference. This isn't about giving someone a perk for being black or gay. This is about tearing down a wall that shouldn't exist between people and the rights that all American's are already supposed to have. It doesn't matter that someone erected that wall because they were bigoted against mixed race couples, same sex couples, or same height couples -- if the wall doesn't serve a clear and defensible purpose, it has no right being in our law.

 

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...

 

Separate (Civil Union) can never equal (Marriage)

Good thing your not a MLB player, you'd be heading to the Independent League with your batting average.

 

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...

 

The rule is the same the people are not and the effects are not and the situations that put people in are not

Heterosexuals generally don’t want to marry someone of the same gender

it would not be fair to us heterosexuals to ban hetero sexual marriage to everyone and only allow homosexual marriage homosexuals could do as they please and we could almost never marry the person of are choice

if you had a deadly food allergy I knew about and I had you over for dinner and fed you and every one else the same dish with the ingredient your allergic to in it without talking to anyone about it

I would be doing a very similar action to you and everyone else it would look identical

But your nature makes the same action one of offering a meal into an act of poisoning I would not behave differently towards any one and still you will be affected differently and I know it and its not fair for me to do it

 

no it seems he cant

 

So what?

As George Carlin famously said, "Think about how stupid the average person is. Then realize, half of them are stupider than that."

Civil rights are not up for a vote.

How about if a majority of the people wanted interracial marriage outlawed? That was the definition of marriage until the 1970's. Is that acceptable?

False. Demonstrably false. You are good example of why people who know nothing of law should get their ignorant noses out of this topic.

What about interracial marriage, which would upset a militant minority of blacks? Is that acceptable?

How are they forcing anything on you? Your life would not be affected in the slightest. And I am more qualified than you to say that, because I live in a jurisdiction where same-sex marriage is completely legal. And it hasn't affected my life or marriage one whit.

Doubtful. Recent polls now say a majority of the nation thinks same-sex marriage should be legal. Obviously, the trend is toward more acceptance. NY "conservatives" blustered at the time of the passage in our state, but months later it's barely a blip on anyone's mind.

You'd be better off facing reality, here: You're on the wrong side of history. In 50 years, you'll be seen as ignorant and close-minded as the people in Alabama and other southern states who stood against desegregation. That's the absolute truth.

 

Its not emotional...its what the SCOTUS said in 1954. Separate (Civil Unions) can never equal (Marriage).

The California Supreme Court said this about Prop 22 (Civil Unions).

 

Also, do you notice how he always claims how we are always 'emotional' about this?

Throw them ad homs!

 

Certainly. Two people in a civil union cannot take property in tenancy by the entireties, because that requires marriage. They also cannot file income taxes jointly, because, again, 26 U.S.C. specifies "married".

NY isn't a state?

 

Just because we protect people of different races better from those who think like you these days

Doesn’t mean they were never discriminated against under a unversed rule that made them less equal to people who wanted one race marriages between blacks and whites


The example still refutes you

 

Genital preference is not a civil right, despite your continued bullcrap preteding otherwise.

Period. "recent Polls" are nothing more than horsesqueeze, so Leftninnies ,naturally love them.

The score is 33-0 when ACTUAL POLLS ARE USED, and BALLOTS ARE CAST.

As I said, we will continue to CRUCH YOU at the ballot box,and slowly, but surely WEED OUT the gay acctivist judges that think their genital prefernce over rides our right to define marriage, the Will of We, the People.

And if a buncha queens wanna cry because they can't call their civil unions "marriage", we'll gladly hand them a Kleenex....

 

"Married couples have 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities such as:

• Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children.
• Family and Medical Leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member
• Workers' Compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job
• Access to COBRA insurance benefits so the family doesn't lose health insurance when one spouse is laid off
• ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse
• Exemptions from penalties on IRA and pension rollovers
• Exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies
• Exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance
• The right to visit a sick or injured loved one, have a say in life and death matters during hospitalization.

A civil union is a legal status granted by a state. The State of Vermont created civil unions in 2000. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections, as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage". Civil unions are different from civil marriage and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal, such as:

Portability:
Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes but questions remain as to how civil unions will be treated in other states. The two appellate courts that have addressed the issue in Connecticut and Georgia have disregarded them based on the fact that their own states do not grant civil unions.

Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 General Accounting Office report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government alone. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

Taxes and Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.

Filling Out Forms:
Every day we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married, single, divorced or widowed. People joined in a civil union do not fit in any of those categories. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit yet misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and can carry potential serious criminal penalties.

Separate and Unequal—Second Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status only for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. The United States Constitution requires legal equality for all. Including lesbian and gay couples within existing marriage laws in is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disregard civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than establishing residency in Vermont and filing for dissolution there. This has already created problems for couples who now have no way to terminate their legal agreement." (link)​

Same thing was said in 1967.​

 

We live in a republic, not a democracy, where a constitution will always overrule the vote of the people.

If you do not like it, you can always buy a one way ticket to another country of your choosing.

 

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.

 

You Do realize the number 1400, as in 1400 rights, is a made up number no more accurate than my picking 50 or 5million from the ether and posting it. It is DemCount in action...the use of imaginary numbers to make a political point.

 

In 1954 the SCOTUS said that separate is inherently unequal, hence separate (Civil Unions) is not equal (marriage).

I somehow dont think the SCOTUS gives a dam what you think.

Black Drinking Fountains and White Drinking Fountains the south had in the 40's gave out the same exact water and even at same exact temperature, yet it was the left that want the force white man to drink from the same fountain as the black man.....yeah...good luck with that.

 

Legal and economic benefits of marriage

 

Please name which states do not allow civil unions. The rights are the same as with marriage. The main complaint seems to be that couples must legally file for dissolution of the union= tough schit.

We will continue to define marriage as we see fit.

Enjoy the indentical rights that your civil union allows you.

 

In 1954 the SCOTUS said that separate is inherently unequal, hence separate (Civil Unions) is not equal (marriage).

 

Federal rights recognized for married couples, including inheritance forgiveness and social security benefits to name only two, are not available to folks who form a civil union. The rights are not identical. Not even close.

Our constitution does not allow states to offer benefits to some and deny them to others without providing clear and compelling reasons why those benefits must be denied. Even if the majority doesn't feel a minority deserves equal legal protections.