Consolidated Gay Issue Thread


#5841

It’s the exact same reason blind people can’t get a drivers license. They don’t meet the qualifications.


#5842

Yes, you’ve made that “argument” a hundred times, and it remains as stupid and cruel as it did the first time. The matter’s been settled, Dave, by the highest court in the land - gays cannot be deprived of the law’s equal protection by religion, superstition and prejudice.

It’s time to move on and find another issue to be all huffy about.


#5843

Nothing “stupid” OR “cruel” about it, Jazz. What’s stupid is your insistence that “marriage” has somehow become a civil “right” that’s been denied gays. It’s not–and HAS not. Because an activist court, comprised of a bunch of morons wearing black robes SAYS so, doesn’t MAKE it so. For several decades now, gays have been on a tear to destroy the concept of “marriage” and “family”–successfully, to a degree. They’ve succeeded in changing the very LANGUAGE. Homosexuals are now “gay,” which is completely opposite of what they are. I’ve known hundreds of “gays” in my 73 years on the planet and almost NONE of them could be described as “gay.” I worked with two of them in my last job before retirement and both were as miserable as about anyone I’ve ever met, but NOT because they couldn’t “marry”. It was because deep down they both knew that there was something badly wired in their psyches.


#5844

[quote=“Pappadave, post:5843, topic:33143”]
Nothing “stupid” OR “cruel” about it, Jazz. What’s stupid is your insistence that “marriage” has somehow become a civil “right” that’s been denied gays. It’s not–and HAS not. Because an activist court, comprised of a bunch of morons wearing black robes SAYS so, doesn’t MAKE it so. For several decades now, gays have been on a tear to destroy the concept of “marriage” and “family”–successfully, to a degree. They’ve succeeded in changing the very LANGUAGE. Homosexuals are now “gay,” which is completely opposite of what they are. I’ve known hundreds of “gays” in my 73 years on the planet and almost NONE of them could be described as “gay.” I worked with two of them in my last job before retirement and both were as miserable as about anyone I’ve ever met, but NOT because they couldn’t “marry”. It was because deep down they both knew that there was something badly wired in their psyches.
[/quote] Times change. Women can now vote. Child labor laws exist, blacks don’t have to give up their seats for a white person and gays can now legally marry whom they choose.


#5845

Your nonsense hasn’t.


#5846

Times don’t change?


#5847

Not really. Still a crap magazine. :no:


#5848

Gays can now legally marry whom they choose, how does that make you feel?


#5849

I see humor is also wasted on the left.

Considering my views on homosexuality I find it sad that you, and those like you, continue to take advantage minorities to enforce your views on the larger majority. If you would use that same drive and energy to actually fix the problem the would just might be a little more equal. But what can I expect for the racist left. But what do I know I’m just a simple black man who cannot think for himself and whose religious views do not matter because [insert made up reason with no supporting evidence here].


#5850

How does two women marrying one another affect you in anyway? No one can ever force you to like or approve of it. I don’t like Hip Hop but it’s existence affects me not one iota.


#5851

No, but the precedent is set to FORCE me to participate. The next step will be for the Gooberment to force pastors to perform gay marriages. They’ll force Christian photographers to take the photos, and Christian florists will be forced to provide goods and services.
Funny how you leftists will scream for the fair treatment of any minority on the planet, but won’t lift your voices to allow Christians to live within their religious tenets. Tolerant? What a joke.
Nope, In your mind, homos sodomizing each other is equal protection, but Christians refusing to participate in a perverse ceremony, is bigotry.
Or are you willing to state without reservation that Christians should be exempt from providing services to gay unions?


#5852

Still cannot see the forest for the trees. I tell you what go back and look at more recent posts on homosexuality otherwise I am done. I am not a fan of repeating what I believe, every page of every thread.


#5853

It’s a closed issue and done deal buddy, I’ve got a feeling that your world will keep on turning. Nobody’s gonna force you to get gay married or even attend a gay wedding. You can still wave your fist in the air at things you don’t like and disagree with.


#5854

#5855

One can use whatever contortionist, tortured and misinformed twisting of the plain meaning and intent of the 14 amendment they wish. However, the fact is that under the equal protection clause there is no way gays can be targeted as not included in a legally recognized union with all the rights, privileges and obligations attached thereto.

Underlying the argument in opposition to same sex marriage are personal religious beliefs. One is free to practice their religious belief, but one is not free to expect the government to impose their religious belief system on others.


#5856

No! It’s not been settled. A majority on the court engaged in judicial tyranny by defying both the text and legislative intent of the Constitution. And what is most disturbing is that you have no problem with a majority on the court imposing its personal sense of fairness, justice and reasonableness as the rule of law. You should be ashamed of yourself.

JWK


“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968



#5857

This has nothing to do with same sex marriage and everything to do with a majority on the Court defying both the text and legislative intent of our Constitution, just as the Court did in Roe vs Wade and in the VMI case. In each of these cases a majority on the Court defied the text of our Constitution and its legislative intent and took it upon itself to do for the people what the people refused to do as outlined in our Constitution’s amendment process.

Why are you so comfortable with the Court engaging in judicial tyranny? Were you also comfortable when the majority of the Court decided to change the constitutional meaning of public use in the Kelo decision so private property could be taken and transferred to new ownership for a profit make business venture? You should read that decision in which the Court proudly admits it has changed the meaning of public use because of the “evolving needs of society”, ignoring that our constitution’s amendment process is the only way to accommodate change and it requires consent of the governed.

JWK


#5858

This has nothing to do with religion my friend. That is your way to avoid establishing the 14th Amendment prohibits the states to make laws which make distinctions based upon sex. Have you forgotten that the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have forbidden distinctions in law based upon sex was rejected by the American People, and one of the reasons it was rejected because it would compel the States to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples?

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.***_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


#5859

Slippery slope nonsense. The equal protection clause is part of the Constitution, much as you’d like to deny it, but so is the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty. Churches are not going to be “forced”, at least by the government anyway, to perform gay weddings. They may be “forced” to do so by the rapid change in our culture, which increasingly sees opposition to gay marriage and gay equality as indistinguishable from bigotry. You may lash back at that characterization, but Christian churches that opposed racial equality and provided most of the Klan’s members in the last century have mostly changed with the times. So it will be with gays. If it takes time, so be it. Folks with your mindset will die off. The vast majority of young people have no issues with two persons of the same sex providing for their futures together. If churches want such people as members, they will change.

As for the issue of refusing commercial services for gay weddings, my views are evolving on the subject now that the SCOTUS has confirmed the right to marry. If a shopowner is willing to generally serve gay customers without discriminating, but unwilling to provide specific services for activities he deems sinful, he should have the right to post a sign to that effect and decline to provide those enumerated services. The presence of the sign permits the free market to function - he will gain or lose business based on his customers’ knowledge of what services he will and won’t provide.


#5860

What is objected to is your unsubstantiated notion that the 14th Amendment forbids the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex, and is a rule to bar every imaginable type of state based “discrimination”___ a word which does not even appear in the Amendment!

The fact is, your interpretation of the 14th Amendment is proven to be in error when reading the very next amendment to our Constitution, the 15th Amendment. This Amendment (the 15th) prohibits a new type of “discrimination” not covered by the 14th Amendment! The American People decide using Article V , the constitutional method for change to accommodate changing times, to prohibit discrimination at the voting booth based upon “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”

Your asserted interpretation of the 14th Amendment is also proven to be absurd when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to amend our federal Constitution to forbid sex discrimination, but they are very specific in limiting it with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”

Your notion that the 14th Amendment prohibits every imaginable type of discrimination is absurd considering the 15th and 19th amendments had to be adopted to prohibit the specific kinds of discrimination mentioned in them.

Aside from that, the ludicrousness of your interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and that of the Court’s majority opinion, falls flat on its face when recalling that there was a proposed amendment, the so-call “Equal Rights Amendment” attempted to be added to our Constitution in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination. But it was rejected by the People of America, and one of the reasons it was rejected was that it would compel the States to grant marriages licenses to same sex couples!

Why do you embrace a tyrannical supreme court opinion when it defies both the text and legislative intent of our Constitution? Why are you so eager to accept the Court’s anarchy which flouts the rule of law?

We have been warned about you willingness to accept tyranny!

”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.***_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)