Nevada Hospital Denies Gay Couple Visitation As Partner Has Pregnancy Complications

...50 years ago sodomy was illegal...so...that makes 2 guys poking each other in the butt illegal...but now it's OK to poke someone in the butt...as a matter of fact it's very popular right now...so something that was frowned upon AND illegal at one time is now very popular...pedophilia will be next...argue it all you want, but it happened before and it will happen again...


Kabuki Joe

 

Yes, anthropoligists will tell you that behaviors are social-pathogens in homo sapiens as well as our lower cousins in the primate world. Very easy to deduce that certain behaviors are inherited through display and cultural values.

Ding ding Johnny...I believe we have a winner:





And for the "T" [Transgender] part of the GLBT equation:







Yes, I believe there is ample basis to deny GLBTs the privelege of marriage. And why? Because that particular contract comes with a little list of bennies that others don't. One of which is the right to adopt children. Refer to my points on anthropology at the top of this post.

 

LOL The voice of experience.

Nothing to do with the argument you made.

ROFLOL Sure you do. If you really are you wouldn't have made such a moronic argument abusing the 14th amendment.

The problem is you aren't looking at it as a contract. By abusing the 14th ammendmnet you are claiming it is a RIGHT. How do you miss the blatently obvious in your own claim?

Yawn. You are claiming it is a right so this entire history lesson means nothing.

By claiming it is a right you CANNOT limit who receives it when you cite "equal protection under the law" as your reasoning for nullifying existing laws against gay marriage. Once you do that you cannot limit that new right.

Your inability to understand such a basic concept in law is truly amazing.

 

Because you can't argue against my points.

I already knew that by your cowardly ducking of them.

 

Couples of the same sex dont have the capacity to enter a marriage.

Matrimony, root of the word MATER, MOTHER! Only a man turns a woman into a mother. Marternity is only for women. Paternity is only for men. These are not arbitrary distinctions.

 

I've traced this conversation back to the post in question to which you responded. Bow to the Robots doesn't actually mention "equal protection under the law" in that post. YOU are the one who brought up the 14th amendment in YOUR reply to him.

This is rich. First you complain that Bow to the Robots' argument was based solely on the statement "equal protection under the law". Then when I ask you to explain what you think the 14th amendment does, you complain that it has nothing to do with his argument.

Hint: The phrase "equal protection of the laws" comes from the 14th Amendment. I will certainly agree that "equal protection under the law" is a misphrasing. But it seems you really don't know anything about the 14th Amendment and the equal protection clause it contains. If you did, you'd be able to answer my question asking you to explain what you think it does. You won't do so, not because it's unrelated, but because you're seemingly incapable. Rise to the challenge or retreat, but you're not fooling anyone by loudly proclaiming my alleged cluelessness.

I've searched the thread. I do not see where you posted any definitions or case law.

In this thread? I wasn't able to find it when I did a search. So I have to assume this is 1) a mistake on your part, or 2) a blatant lie. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was just a mistake. Heck, I'm even willing to admit the possiblity that you did post what you claim and that I've somehow missed it. If you want to really prove me wrong, kindly produce a link to the post(s) where you provided this case law and definitions in this thread, and I will give them their due examination. They don't seem to be part of the your discussion with Bow to the Robots.

I am willing to have a respectful discussion, but if you are not willing to accord me that same courtesy, then we might as well not waste our time.

 

The civil marriage contract is nothing but a contract. Every competent consenting adult has a right to enter a contract. You simply don't know what you're talking about. And you are intentionally distorting my position to boot. I know it's intentional because I don't believe that even you are that stupid.

 

Many have also "decided" they have a "compelling interest" in suppressing other constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Does that make them right? California, for example, has "decided" that they have a "compelling interest" in significantly increasing the legal difficulty to purchase and own a handgun. New York City has "decided" that they have a "compelling interest" in limiting the liquid volume of soda that a consumer may purchase at one time. Washington State has "decided" that it has a "compelling interest" in providing driver licenses to illegal aliens. Barack Obama has "decided" that the federal government has a "compelling interest" in providing you with health care. He has also "decided" that in order to do that he has to "spread the wealth around a little."

So do we want to make law just because someone "decides" there is a "compelling interest?" Or do we want to make law only when there is a bona fide compelling state interest? You can read my sig line to find out my answer to that one...

 

I can not argue against something that does not exist.

 

of course they do. that's why they actually do get married.

matrimony has absolutely nothing to do with the secular legal institution of marriage.

 

Not some one but a super-majority should decide these things. If national health care were passed by constitutional amendment then I wouldn't have an issue with it. But as it stands, the feds overstepped their authority. I would have the same problem with an act of congress banning gay marriage; again they don't have that authority under the constitution as it is now written.

With regards to the state laws, I have no problem if, say, Massachusetts, has a government health care plan. I don't have a problem that gay marriage is legal there.

In my state, we asked the voters if they wanted traditional marriage codified in our constitution and they approved it by a super-majority.

 

My God it just gets worse and worse. If you had actually done your homework which took me about 45 seconds in a search you would find he has been using this argument in multiple threads for almost 3 weeks.

FAIL once again doing your research.

http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...ments-against-gay-marriage-3.html#post4297052

Because that is what he did.

I've already given you the context and intent of the 14th amendment. Don't you remember your EPIC FAIL in trying to claim it was a "trick question"? Can you not even remember your own posts?

LOL Well done Captain Obvious.

Because I'm not going to play your game. I've already played one of your little games with your failed "Trick question" What I think about the 14th amendment is irrelevant to the argument he presented and just shows a pathetic and cowardly attempt by you to circumvent his argument.

But don't worry, I expected no less.

Another FAIL. What did I actually say:

Its really getting sad you can't keep up.

And here they are again:

Now what. Do 'I have to cite the specific cases for you as well? how much handholding do you need?

Dred Scott v. Sandford

Brown v. Board of Education

Reed v. Reed

I'll repeat. NONE of those court cases EVER dealt with homosexuality or any sexual perference other than heterosexuality. Another FAIL.

LOL Spare me the lies. Your first post to me in this thread:

YOU set the tone in here. This pathetic attempt to call for respect and civility after the fact is truly sad.

If you were really willing to have a respectful discussion you would read the argument you are defending and actually address it.

But you don't. You want to dance around it trying in vain to add more verbiage to the argument after the fact because you weren't smart enough to read what you were defending. So spare me the fake calls for civility. This debate tone is one of your own making.

 

Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is a societal standard. It is the basis of society. Those are facts. Leftist Obama voterts hate facts and standards.

 

HAHAHAHA Running away from your "rights" argument and cowardly block responding because you can't address the argument YOU made once again.

I am distorting nothing about your position. That is a LIE. YOU were the one who cited "equal protection under the law" as a RIGHT for gay marriage.

You made your bed. Deal with it.

 

The tyranny of a million is just as tyrannical as the tyranny of one. The effect is the same. To quote someone far wiser and more eloquent than me, "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting n what's fr dinner." That kind of authoritarian statism has no place in our body politic in my view. And the 14th Amendment is clear. As is the 10th: States may not make laws that violate the Constitution.

 

You are more of a leftist that me, sir. Your endorsement of big-government nanny statism tells me all I need to know. The irony of your screen name is not lost on this observer.

 

But mentally ill behavior is not a "race" or "gender" or "creed". So you're kinda screwed on that little legal technicality. Behaviors are covered under local penal and civil codes; which are in turn decided by a democratic majority.

Checkmate.

 

The 14th Amendment guarantees every citizen equal protection under the law. Every competent consenting adult citizen has the right to enter a contract. Government marriage is a contract. This is my position now, this was my position yesterday, this will be my position tomorrow. It has not changed since you and I began this delightful discussion. Stop lying.

 

But post #377 sheds doubt on whether or not GLBTs are mentally competant. Pictures don't lie, after all:











Remember folks, "T" is for Transgender.

And the 14th Amendment does not represent, nor protect human behaviors. Creed comes closest. Lacking federal recognition for GLBT as a religion, the Agenda is pretty much dead in the water with respect to manipulating the 14th to get at adopting kids...

 

Social conformity does not indicate mental capacity.

 

Yes it does. Because society determines who is mentally ill and who isn't. True, that shifts with time. But this is a shift the majority does not support. Again:

THE 14TH AMENDMENT DOES NOT COVER HUMAN BEHAVIORS, EXCEPT RELIGION. SINCE GLBTS ARE NOT A RECOGNIZED RELIGION, NOR A RACE, NOR A GENDER, THE 14TH DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM. JUST CALLING YOURSELF A GROUP DOES NOT QUALIFY. YOU MUST DEMONSTRATE HOW YOUR GROUP EXISTS GENETICALLY OR BY VIRTUE OF FAITH IN RELIGION. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IS THE ONLY OTHER EXCEPTION. YOU NEED TO RATIFY A NEW AMENDMENT TO DESIGNATE JUST YOUR SELECT GROUP OF SEXUALLY DEVIANT BEHAVIORS AS "SPECIAL" AMONG OTHERS...SOMEHOW...

 

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."​

Well, there's the 14th Amendment. None of what you just posted is in there. Keep trying.

 

So it wasn't in this thread, then. i'm addressing the conversation taking place here.

It was a trick question. You still seemingly don't know the correct answer, which is that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment applies to: "any person within its [the state's] jurisdiction". Not just blacks. Not based on race. Not based on gender. The fact that courts have applied the clause in cases involving those things doesn't narrow its scope to only those things. To do so would be judicial activism, not adhering to the plain wording of the amendment.

If, as you say, his argument rests solely on "equal protection" then what you think about the 14th is indeed very relevant as the amendment housing that clause.

So now characterizing this...

...as a "definition"? Funny, you chose to snip and ignore my response laying out the hypocrisy of proclaiming the 14th doesn't apply because "same-sex marriage isn't in there", then turning around to say that "blacks" and "racial discrimination" are covered by the amendment even though they aren't mentioned in it. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that it fails to provide those groups equal protection.

We can agree that the Supreme Court hasn't yet characterized orientation as a suspect classification under strict or heightened scrutiny to find a violation of the equal protection clause. It would be correct to say that it "isn't in there", in reference to the existing case law, rather than the amendment which that case law applies.

But your are essentially begging the question. The argument is that the equal protection clause is applicable to the claims of same-sex couples. The argument was not put forth that the existing case law has already established this; there are instances where lower courts have considered the question in their rulings but instead opted to overturn the bans based on the lower, "rational basis" standard of review. The point is that this claim is being pressed before the courts in the cases making their way up the chain to the Supreme Courts. The point is that attorneys are making the case for the application of the clause. Ignoring all of that context to boldly proclaim that the clause doesn't apply, as if it were settled law, is arrogantly dismissive.

No one claimed they did. If there's a claim to be made regarding those cases, it would be the precedents they set which may be applied to other cases that deal with something other than race or gender, such as orientation. You're welcome to provide us with arguments for why you don't think they apply, but merely saying "they don't apply", as if that were the end of it, is just more of the same arrogantly dismissive behavior. Nothing about those cases narrows the very broad scope of the 14th's equal protection clause.

On the contrary, I simply answered you in the same tone you had used in the post to which I replied.

I have, your contention that I haven't notwithstanding.

 

We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/bakrvnel.htm