Major Blow to Homophobes: SCOTUS Refuses to Block Gay Marriage in DC

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I do not view marriage as a right.

That matters little - the Supreme court does hold that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights Americans have.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Actually, the entire REASON for this issue is because it ISN'T everyone's understanding of marriage, it is the churches. Most of this thread has been dedicated to talking about recognizing a gay couple as married if they decide to make that distinction. You are the only one who has been deviating from that conversation.

If the government is to give a certain couple rights because they are considered married and won't give another couple the same rights because they aren't currently "allowed" to be married, that is wrong. You claim that you fear those of us not against gay marriage don't recognize ourselves as part of the greater civilization. I have similar concerns that people against it, have separated themselves from an entire portion of society for so-called "moral" reasons.

-Blu-

Until social reformists (read liberals) started clammering for gay marriage, who did you think got married?

According to our Constitution, the government doesn't grant rights. Rights are established by God, and the government has a duty to protect and enforce those inalienable rights. God did not grant the right to gay marriage. It is a made up right.

[Wyld Blu 35]

Acceptance of homosexuals and the realization that the long practiced discrimination against this population in our society is wrong has undeniably occurred over the past decades. The very fact that homosexuals are, in many states, afforded the right to form 'civil unions' - state sanctioned relationships short of the full benefits of marriage - is a clear sign that the tide is shifting and that acceptance is growing. Homosexuality is a natural occurrence just as left handedness. We wouldn't think of affording left handed people less than the full benefits of marriage so why single out the group of homosexuals? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Churches may handle it whichever way they want. They're not bound by the Constitution just as government is not bound by any religious text.

Which is why there should be a complete separation of church and state, especially between highly religious people trying to decide the laws for everyone.

-Blu-

[Dan J 277]

You see it as normal and don't understand why anyone else wouldn't. How does that make you right and me wrong?

I never said that you are wrong. But as a basis for law, something not being "normal" is very weak. In the 21rst century, we should be long past the point of solely making laws based on the majorities cultural taboos, and recognize that even the minority has equal rights in all aspects of the law.

If you can't handle that, stay home, and lock your door. At least in your house you can do whatever the hell you want.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

One of my good friends is a woman named Clela Rorex. Look her up. She is a gay icon and the story of how she came to be involves bestiality.

As I said, I'm not interested in side-tracks. We're talking about homosexuals being denied their Constitutional rights.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I really wish people would look at the history of marriage.

It's in no way a religious institution, nor a government function.....

The original intent of it anyway....

AND it didn't originate in Western Cultures either....

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Acceptance of homosexuals and the realization that the long practiced discrimination against this population in our society is wrong has undeniably occurred over the past decades. The very fact that homosexuals are, in many states, afforded the right to form 'civil unions' - state sanctioned relationships short of the full benefits of marriage - is a clear sign that the tide is shifting and that acceptance is growing. Homosexuality is a natural occurrence just as left handedness. We wouldn't think of affording left handed people less than the full benefits of marriage so why single out the group of homosexuals? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Churches may handle it whichever way they want. They're not bound by the Constitution just as government is not bound by any religious text.

Acceptance of gays and their "rights" in the US is less than two decades old. I'm nearly 60. I've been part of the process for a long time. All this gay rights stuff is very, very recent history and not nearly as accepted as you think at the depth that you believe it to be.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

According to our Constitution, the government doesn't grant rights. Rights are established by God, and the government has a duty to protect and enforce those inalienable rights. God did not grant the right to gay marriage. It is a made up right.

Not quite.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life's joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution's protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The constitution is not a "lose" situation...

When you're ready to actually read/understand the constitution, let me know..

To me it seems like you're trying to troll and find any excuse because you are a homophobe....

I'm not a homophobe and I have not only read, but studied the Constitution for years. I carry a copy with me every day. I have creds.

I don't think simply saying 'how does it not?' is a good argument. I don't see any threat to social order in granting the rights afforded by marriage to gay couples. Perhaps you could explain how it does?

I'm trying to get someone to explain how it doesn't.

[Wyld Blu 35]

I really wish people would look at the history of marriage.

It's in no way a religious institution, nor a government function.....

The original intent of it anyway....

AND it didn't originate in Western Cultures either....

Hmmm...I KNEW someone would correct me, somewhere on this. LOL. I thought it began in the church. Where DID the ideas and ideals of marriage start?

-Blu-

[one...two...tree 2,762]

:rofl:

[Sofiyya 1,687]

That matters little - the Supreme court does hold that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights Americans have.

The Supreme Court, at one time, also saw Blacks as property, Native Americans as savages ready for slaughter, and more recently, sees your property as seizable to be given by local governments to a for profit, privately owned business. That is Constitutional to them. They are not alwats right.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Acceptance of gays and their "rights" in the US is less than two decades old. I'm nearly 60. I've been part of the process for a long time. All this gay rights stuff is very, very recent history and not nearly as accepted as you think at the depth that you believe it to be.

Yeah, 20 years give or take a couple. It won't be another 20 before the still existing discrimination against homosexuals by the government will come to an end. You're 60 so you'll still see it happen. You might not like it but it'll happen all the same.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I never said that you are wrong. But as a basis for law, something not being "normal" is very weak. In the 21rst century, we should be long past the point of solely making laws based on the majorities cultural taboos, and recognize that even the minority has equal rights in all aspects of the law.

If you can't handle that, stay home, and lock your door. At least in your house you can do whatever the hell you want.

Normal is a subjective determination. So, your determination is not a valid basis for changing the definitionof marriage for everyone, no?

Are you rights equal to that of a rich person who can hire the best defense lawyers when charged with a crime? Can corporations steal your intellectual property? It is a lie that we have equal rights in all aspects of law.

[Wyld Blu 35]

The Supreme Court, at one time, also saw Blacks as property, Native Americans as savages ready for slaughter, and more recently, sees your property as seizable to be given by local governments to a for profit, privately owned business. That is Constitutional to them. They are not alwats right.

Which is why it is an ever changing document and new laws and amendments are made. Laws to make sure old and outdated laws are changed to afford everyone the same rights.

-Blu-