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

[Sofiyya 1,687]

How is what I do with MY wife in OUR bedroom...YOUR BUSINESS????? Because if it is your business what two lesbians do (or 6...don't get me started) then it must be your business what I do, what my wife does, what your neighbors do. I will BET you there are things I do with my wife that you do not approve of, and what? Who will monitor this? This is why conservatives are just as repulsive to me as liberals, they just want to control a different part of my life...stay the #### out of my life! Stay out of my bedroom, my garage, my doctor's office, my refrigerator. It is none of your business what I smoke, drink, eat, drive, shoot or ####!!!!!!! I do not need the government to tell me what to do in my bedroom! At least a liberal Democrat can make some hollow, bogus claim of being concerned about ME when they want to control my life in "exchnage" for healthcare. They can at least pretend at some redeeming value...but this control of what people do in their bedroom simply has no redeeming value and is nothing but sick control of people for no reason. I want to vomit. Why do we not have a vomit icon yet?

bet he doesn't like (or you don't like in his name) what I do with my wife in bed. Tough ####### for you. I respect your right to believe in leprechauns also.

I'm concerned about marriage, not about bed partners.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I want to vomit. Why do we not have a vomit icon yet?

Here you go:

I'm concerned about marriage, not about bed partners.

The only marriage you have a right to be concerned about is yours. My marriage is none of your business. None.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

This has been a relatively civil discussion up until a few posts back. Please try and keep this discussion civil and respectful even if you disagree with each other. There are ways to express your disagreement without resorting to obscenity and insults.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No more vomiting?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

It is my business. I don't have my head in the sand.

No but is apparently stuck somewhere.

Keep your delusions and prejudice's to yourself. I really could care less what any other individuals do with each other when they are consenting adults and your prejudice should influence no ones behavior but your own. If you want to feel uncomfortable with the thought of sexual relations between persons of the same sex that is your business, but your feeling it is 'wrong' is wrong.

I also could care less if you worship whipped cream, and like to howl at the moon as your path to salvation.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Here you go:

The only marriage you have a right to be concerned about is yours. My marriage is none of your business. None.

Apparently some feel otherwise.

Which so long as government gives tax breaks/benefits, it will be a public issue.

It's why government needs to be taken out and leave it to individual decisions/personal contracts if necessary.

It would end this debate in a heartbeat.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Apparently some feel otherwise.

Which so long as government gives tax breaks/benefits, it will be a public issue.

It's why government needs to be taken out and leave it to individual decisions/personal contracts if necessary.

It would end this debate in a heartbeat.

There's a good bit of truth to that. As I said earlier, I could live with that. It would restore equality and end the currently government sanctioned and practiced discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Oh, and I don't really give a flying ** whether anyone "feels otherwise" and thinks that my marriage is their business. They're mistaken. Plain and simple.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I don't feel sorry for them, I just believe that they have the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as heterosexuals. It is widely accepted - except in some little bubbles - that homosexuals haven't chosen to be homosexuals much like left-handed people haven chosen to be left handed.

I have no problem with one's pursuit of happiness. I also don't believe that most gays choose to be gay. I have a problem with the slippery slope of redefining marriage as that other than between a man and a woman. Lots of groups can invent rights to perverted "marriage". Why stop with gays?

De-segregation and interracial marriages are widely accepted today, aren't they? Those were imposed by the Supreme Court against the will of the people in a number of states. And the history on same sex marriage is in the process of being written. It has been legalized in a number of states and will eventually be legalized in all of the states.And we're not talking decades from now but rather a few years. 40 years from now, people will look back at the beginning of the century and wonder what all the bigotry was all about.

I know you want to insist that gay marriage and interracial marriage are analygous. I reject that argument. People are not as accepting when a change is forced on them; and this is a far more distortion of a societal norm than interracial marriage ever was. Interracial marriage didn't include the concept that marriage is no longer between opposite sexes. Basic gender and anatomy are not a social constructs in the way race is.

It's not liberalism - it's the Constitution. That liberal rag, you know.

There is no right to gay marriage in the Constitution. Marriage is regulated by the states, and is not a federal matter. That state's rights thing, ya know. It is a major mistake for you leftists to believe that forcing massive social shifts on a resistant population thru legislation or case law has no dire consequences. Don't be so arrogant.

I am not a liberal.

I can only go by what you post, and you're posting like a liberal here.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I can only go by what you post, and you're posting like a liberal here.

gay marriage isn't a 'liberal' issue.....

seriously, be reasonable beyond how you 'feel' and your own 'morality'

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Gay marriage is not "liberalism" - sorry.

Gay marriage is a fallacy in itself just as much Hetero Marriage is a fallacy in itself when it comes to Government recognizing it.

If you are religious and want your church to marry you, that's great.

However, if you want Government to recognize the union then it needs to recognize it between parties of all sexes who wish to be recognized as a union. You cannot give benefit to those who you feel deserve so based on a moral chart. It doesn't work that way.

If you think it does, I would suggest you get a better understanding of the constitution.

Gay marriage is a tenet of liberalism. Straight up.

Marriage is a government institution. Fight that, if you wish.

I have no church.

Morality is a basic argument for gay marriage, so injecting my concept of morality is totally in keeping with the ongoing debate.

I have a wonderful understanding of the Constitution. It has much to do with what I do for a living.

gay marriage isn't a 'liberal' issue.....

seriously, be reasonable beyond how you 'feel' and your own 'morality'

Are you not arguing from your own views of morality? I know you would like for me to argue from your views, but no . . .

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Gay marriage is a tenet of liberalism. Straight up.

Marriage is a government institution. Fight that, if you wish.

I have no church.

Morality is a basic argument for gay marriage, so injecting my concept of morality is totally in keeping with the ongoing debate.

I have a wonderful understanding of the Constitution. It has much to do with what I do for a living.

Are you not arguing from your own views of morality? I know you would like for me to argue from your views, but no . . .

Wrong.

Government only "recognizes" marriages for tax reasons.

Marriage really has nothing to do with government and two people being as one is as of NO BUSINESS of the government whatsoever.

If the government is going to offer any type of benefits to two people then it has to be uniform across the board.

If you understand the constitution then you truly understand that no state can dishonor a marriage that took place in another state either, whether that state agrees with its 'morality' or not.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I know you want to insist that gay marriage and interracial marriage are analygous. I reject that argument. People are not as accepting when a change is forced on them; and this is a far more distortion of a societal norm than interracial marriage ever was. Interracial marriage didn't include the concept that marriage is no longer between opposite sexes. Basic gender and anatomy are not a social constructs in the way race is.

Let's take a look at the arguments that helped maintain miscegenation laws for centuries. It fully covers the opposition to same sex marriage with the exception of the already debunked procreation argument. You can deny the parallels all you want but the arguments against interracial marriage were one and the same as those against same sex marriage. As well, the former was forced on the people by the courts and subsequently accepted (more than 1 in 15 marriages today is between people of different races) and the latter will take same course.

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:

• The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.
  

5) The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There is no right to gay marriage in the Constitution. Marriage is regulated by the states, and is not a federal matter. That state's rights thing, ya know. It is a major mistake for you leftists to believe that forcing massive social shifts on a resistant population thru legislation or case law has no dire consequences. Don't be so arrogant.

Of course there's no right to same sex marriage in the Constitution. There's also no right to interracial marriage in the Constitution. And no right for black people to attend white schools and vice versa. Or for black people to sit anywhere in the bus. Or use the same water fountain as white folk. There are plenty of rights not explicitly spelled out. What the Constitution does guarantee is the equal protection and that one extends to all the states whether they like it or not. That's not being arrogant, that's making sure that everyone enjoys the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. How arrogant of you to want to deny people those rights.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Of course there's no right to same sex marriage in the Constitution. There's also no right to interracial marriage in the Constitution. And no right for black people to attend white schools and vice versa. Or for black people to sit anywhere in the bus. Or use the same water fountain as white folk. There are plenty of rights not explicitly spelled out. What the Constitution does guarantee is the equal protection and that one extends to all the states whether they like it or not. That's not being arrogant, that's making sure that everyone enjoys the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. How arrogant of you to want to deny people those rights.

All political sides are generally guilty of this and when you try and point it out though, you get labeled as a charlatan.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

All political sides are generally guilty of this and when you try and point it out though, you get labeled as a charlatan.

The thing is that I've read reasonable and convincing arguments as to why same sex marriage should be legalized. I have yet to see one well formulated, reasoned argument in opposition. Fear and prejudice is all you're getting from those that don't believe in the values of the Constitution. I'd be interested to have someone make a reasonable case in opposition but that just doesn't happen.