chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 4:43 PM

You’re a bigoted hypocrite for thinking up such stupid excuses for refusing to support True Marriage Equality.

by passing a domestic partnership law that’s entirely the same as marriage except in name, California’s effectively admitting that there’s no substantive reason to deny gays the right to call themselves “married.” It’s pure discrimination, withholding the label from them just to remind them that they’re different.

They are different. It’s not the government’s place to avoid reminding people of unpleasant truths.

As far as incestuous couples are concerned, I’m content to let the future take care of itself.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 4:43 PM

And this is why you’re wrong, and why we can’t have people like you, self-important holier-than-thou no-nothings pushing and drafting legislation that “socially engineers” society in profundly destructive ways. No different than designing a car that’s a road hazard – no thought put into safety design, let’s just hit the gas and see what happens.

You can’t and WON’T think more than 5 minutes into the future, and are only concerned with hooking up your little preferred group (homosexuals) at this hot minute. And when another similar and socially deviant group (incest/pedo, etc.) belly’s up to the legal bar to have what your group is having, and the predictable and inevitable consequences of your actions and support come to pass, you’ll either struggle in vain to discriminate against them like a hypocrite or instead be desperate to deny any involvement in it at all.

But don’t worry, people like me will be there to wash your face with it.

For instance, I think that “marriage” is a covenant between two people. And “legal” is not prohibited. Under those definitions, same sex marriage is legal in all states.

besser tot als rot on March 1, 2013 at 4:44 PM

It’s a case of “today,” or, these contemporary, later times of people having reinvented a definition of “marriage” and discounting every definition of it prior to this newly-invented definition based upon everything “earlier” being “tradition” and therefore, not admissible as to argument against “‘gay’ marriage”.

This can literally be said about EVERYthing. EVERYthing in language, all institutions, all words, all nouns especially, are defined and have been defined and in application throughout humanity for our species’ history, or most of it.

But the current Leftwing/pro-gay thing is to claim all prior understandings (“definitions”) of just about everything is somehow antiquated and non-admissible legally to their wants because it’s “all tradition” — meaning, if anything’s been “in use” and accepted for longer than, say, the last decade, it’s “old” and “tradition” and has to be discounted as understood as it was compared with what they now want “it” to mean.

This argument is so disrespectful to the human mind and human reasoning. It’s madness asserting itself as reason and calling reason crazy.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 4:47 PM

I absolutely love how they think polygamy and incest marriage isn’t going to happen just because they say so. Ugh!

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 4:50 PM

What “melle” wrote there…because IF Obama’s wonky reasoning is taken seriously and applied, incredibly, despite it’s lack of logic, then there’s nothing to then prevent “anyone” from marrying “anything” in any combination of whatever. Point being that the logic, however illogical, that Obama is pushing would, if applied, rationalize or enable any combination of “marriage” for no reason other than a claim of it being “discrimination” if marriage of whatever combination was “denied”.

It’s the issue of marriage itself that should be addressed here.

Because you realized that they felt that Minnesota had a RIGHT to restrict SS couples from marrying. That there was a compelling reason to grant opposite sex couples licenses and not SS couples. And that same sex couples were inherently DIFFERENT to the state than opposite sex couples were. Do you know what that compelling logical reason was? Care to take a guess? Ding ding ding– The ability to procreate…

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 4:53 PM

This is the simple fact that many of us easily identify (as you have, as some states and their voters do) but Obama’s pushing his idea based upon referring to or defining “homosexuals” as “a class”…he’s using this whole “class” thing to declare they as “a class” are therefore being “discriminated against” IF and AS they’re not being allowed to “marry”.

He’s entitled to his Marxist notions, certainly, but not as a President trying to leverage the Supreme Court to opine as he wants them to despite it not being supported by the Constitution (which does NOT contain ANY “right” based upon “class” as cause or reason).

Serious question — if this passes, what is stopping legal incest polygamy or pedo stuff. Don’t attack me just asking. What’s the legal basis for not those but yes to SSM

pamplonajack on February 28, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Using Obama’s “argument,” nothing to stop such.

He’s arguing “class” as to homosexual behaviors as if “homosexuals” are a third gender or a new race or some sort of “class” that merits special privileges because they’re, uhh, a “class” and not meeting their demands means there’s “discrimination”.

There ARE NO RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION BASED UPON ‘CLASS’.

Listen to what Obama said today if you can becsuse he goes into lengthy “explanation” using “class” as his excuse to demand “‘gay’ marriage”.

KUDOS!

Nicely done.

Not necessarily. You’ll remember that after the Loving case in 1967, a gay couple wanted the court to rule on gay marriage, and the court declined

Again, I have to disagree with you here. Court are not under an obligation to ace immediately on issues arising from one ruling or other. They can decline to take cases, modify their findings etc.

No one is saying states have NO right to regulate marriages, but as with Loving, the judicial can intervene to protect people from rank discrimination. I think it can rule on SSM without opening the door to people marrying their automobiles

Because you realized that they felt that Minnesota had a RIGHT to restrict SS couples from marrying. That there was a compelling reason to grant opposite sex couples licenses and not SS couples. And that same sex couples were inherently DIFFERENT to the state than opposite sex couples were. Do you know what that compelling logical reason was? Care to take a guess? Ding ding ding– The ability to procreate…

Nice job, melle1228. You sent the bigot running away, squealing and crying, showing off how he’s really not put any sort of intelligent thought into this and is just repeating his Obama Party talking points.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 4:47 PM

I absolutely love how they think polygamy and incest marriage isn’t going to happen just because they say so. Ugh!

Is “marriage” a covenant between two people or between two people and the government? Is “marriage” a covenant between two people or a contract between two people for obtaining statist benefit?

Is “legalize” to make legal and allowed, or is it to recognize, validate, and affirm by the government? When people talk about “legalizing” marijuana, for instance, which are they talking about?

besser tot als rot on March 1, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Incestuous couples are two consenting adults. You have to get on the slippery slope because that is what legal precedent does.

Not necessarily. You’ll remember that after the Loving case in 1967, a gay couple wanted the court to rule on gay marriage, and the court declined.

When you tell states that marriage is strictly a federal precedent and that the state has not legal right to regulate marriage for any reason; that the only need is “consenting adults” then it opens the door IMMEDIATELY to all other groups and combinations.

Again, I have to disagree with you here. Court are not under an obligation to ace immediately on issues arising from one ruling or other. They can decline to take cases, modify their findings etc.

No one is saying states have NO right to regulate marriages, but as with Loving, the judicial can intervene to protect people from rank discrimination. I think it can rule on SSM without opening the door to people marrying their automobiles.

You can stick your fingers in your ears all you want, but that is the legal reality. You cannot make the Jim Crow argument and then say but it doesn’t apply to everyone BECAUSE IT DOES. That argument has consequences. You can’t just say it only applies to the groups you like.

It’s not sticking my fingers in my ears because I can’t say how far the implications of nationwide SSM might go. I simply refuse to succumb to alarmism over the issue.

Marriage has always until the last 50 or so years been about offspring. It has always included male/female pairings for that very reason. Procreation is the SOLE reason that incestuous couples have been denied the right to get married.

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 4:18 PM

You couldn’t be more wrong.

Marriage, thoughout history has been about many things; property, alliances, status, and yes, securing offspring. Marriage consisted of male/female pairings because any homosexuals who openly declared their love for each other and wanted to marry would be burned at the stake or at least ostracized. This is the first time in history that same sex couples can be open about who they are without fear (in most cases) of being killed.

As far as incestuous couples are concerned, I’m content to let the future take care of itself.

Ok, I know I’ll be accused of running away, but I have an actual life, and things to do.

Nice talking with you melle1228

Do you really need a statute, rule or decision? I think you are the one who wants to deflect.

I think that you are lying or just making stuff up. If the question is so easy to answer, do so.

Same sex marriage is legal in all states?
That’s the issue under discussion, right?
chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 3:51 PM

That’s what you are alleging. I don’t think that it is. Which is why I want you to define “marriage” and “legal.” Should be pretty easy.

They don’t. In my state there is a religious exemption so that religious institutions not only do NOT have to perform same sex weddings, they don’t even have to rent out their facilities to same sex couples. Most, if not all states where SSM is legal have similar protections.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Actually, that is a complete and total lie.

Gay-sex marriage supporters like ChumpThreads regularly use governmental power to silence and punish religious beliefs in states with so-called “religious exemptions”.

Enter City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. The future mayoral candidate drew her line of opposition to the chicken sandwich purveyor, stating, “Chick-fil-A is not welcome in New York City as long as the company’s president welcomes continues to uphold and promote his discriminatory views.”

She is referring to President Dan Cathy’s remarks on his defense the ‘biblical definition of marriage’ and how America should stop questioning God – these statements were mentioned in yesterday’s piece as well. For Ms. Quinn, the ‘biblical definition of marriage’ is a far cry from reality, especially since she recently wed her longtime partner, Kim M. Catullo.

And, with that, she has started her campaign to boot this organization from NYC’s restaurant ranks.

And there are even more examples.

This is just appalling. A government official thinks that the proper “consequence” for a business owner’s “statements and beliefs” is the denial of the ability to do business. Because he’s “sure the majority of” his constituents find the owner’s “comments and attitudes repugnant,” it’s just fine for him to use the coercive power of the government to block the business from opening up a store. His “belief in equality is resolute,” and that apparently justifies him discriminating against businesspeople for exercising their First Amendment rights to speak out. They “should really reconsider [their] platform on gay issues,” or else the government of Chicago will exclude them from the alderman’s ward.

Meanwhile, the Obama Party and the Obama regime, through its insane anti-religious bigot Chai Feldblum, has openly stated:

But the bottom line for Feldblum is: “Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

So the insane bigot Feldblum and her Obama Party intend to force churches to marry gays because “sexual liberty” trumps religious liberty.

Therefore, you lie, ChumpThreads. You and your segregationist Obama Party are up to your old tricks again, where people who do not toe your racial line will be punished by your racist Obama Party and its racist hatemongering bigots like Feldblum.

The only issue on the table is two consenting same sex people. As I told blink, I’m not getting on the slippery slope merry go-round.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Of course, because you’re a coward who is running away from the obvious.

Fortunately, your lies have already been exposed in the manifestos of the Obama Party and what you endorse and support:

Policy #91, National ACLU Policy on Polygamy, April, 1991: (Current Policy)

The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.

Oh, but there’s more:

Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example:

· Single parent households

· Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents

· Adult children living with and caring for their parents

· Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives

· Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

· Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

Isn’t it hilarious how Obama supporters like Chumpy actually state and advocate that they want to be able to marry their relatives?

So you’ve screamed and pissed yourself that plural marriage is constitutional, that incestuous marriage is constitutional, that child marriage is constitutional and should be pushed – ALREADY.

So why not answer the question, ChumpThreads? Why are you so afraid of acknowledging what is already being pushed by your Obama Party — sibling, child, and plural marriage?

melle1228,
The only issue on the table is two consenting same sex people. As I told blink, I’m not getting on the slippery slope merry go-round.

Incestuous couples are two consenting adults. You have to get on the slippery slope because that is what legal precedent does. When you tell states that marriage is strictly a federal precedent and that the state has not legal right to regulate marriage for any reason; that the only need is “consenting adults” then it opens the door IMMEDIATELY to all other groups and combinations. You can stick your fingers in your ears all you want, but that is the legal reality. You cannot make the Jim Crow argument and then say but it doesn’t apply to everyone BECAUSE IT DOES. That argument has consequences. You can’t just say it only applies to the groups you like.

The nature of marriage has changed thoughout history. It used to be only accessible to opposite sex couples, but that is now changing here and in many other countries. It’s pretty certain that marriage will continue to evolve. Same sex marriage in America is where we are now.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Marriage has always until the last 50 or so years been about offspring. It has always included male/female pairings for that very reason. Procreation is the SOLE reason that incestuous couples have been denied the right to get married.

Marriage is regulated by the state and thus defined by the state and the voters. There are many people who have sex and do not have a marriage i.e. polyamorous trios and incestuous couples– Do you consider their unions as getting the Jim Crow treatments as well or do you think the state can deny them licensure?

melle1228 on March 1, 2013 at 3:56 PM

melle1228,
The only issue on the table is two consenting same sex people. As I told blink, I’m not getting on the slippery slope merry go-round.

The nature of marriage has changed thoughout history. It used to be only accessible to opposite sex couples, but that is now changing here and in many other countries. It’s pretty certain that marriage will continue to evolve. Same sex marriage in America is where we are now.

It is legal in all states. If you don’t think so, please define “marriage” and “legal.”

besser tot als rot on March 1, 2013 at 3:42 PM

I think I know exactly what you are getting at. It isn’t illegal for gay marriage. Same sex marriage is isn’t about making same sex marriage legal. It is about state recognition of those unions. Quite a different thing.

Spoken like a gentleman, sir. Accepted and appreciated.

Thank you, but I am a girl dragon.

If I recall, I made a very general statement that “offering civil unions is like offering separate drinking fountains” or something to that effect. I was comparing the concepts and not calling anyone racist or segregationist.

However, I stand by my point. “Marriage-lite” is not the same marriage. We don’t need a two-tier system of matrimony in this country.

Marriage is regulated by the state and thus defined by the state and the voters. There are many people who have sex and do not have a marriage i.e. polyamorous trios and incestuous couples– Do you consider their unions as getting the Jim Crow treatments as well or do you think the state can deny them licensure?

Oh yeah? Please cite a statute, rule, or decision. Pretty much everything that you’ve said this thread is a deflection or is flat out untrue.

Do you really need a statute, rule or decision? I think you are the one who wants to deflect.

It is legal in all states. If you don’t think so, please define “marriage” and “legal.”

besser tot als rot on March 1, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Same sex marriage is legal in all states?
That’s the issue under discussion, right?

A Homosexuals civil right of choice in consenting sexual behavior has been legally guaranteed.
workingclass artist on March 1, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Beside the point. So has a heterosexual’s.

chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Oh yeah? Please cite a statute, rule, or decision. Pretty much everything that you’ve said this thread is a deflection or is flat out untrue.

It can and WILL happen nationwide, eventually, whatever the SCOTUS does next summer. SSM is legal in my state, and the family law statutes are not an issue.
Just because you don’t want change to happen, doesn’t mean it won’t.
chumpThreads on March 1, 2013 at 2:15 PM

It is legal in all states. If you don’t think so, please define “marriage” and “legal.”