- Add a Comment
-
- The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Please explain how your perversion of the law would address a person born with both sets of sexual organs -- they do exist. In theory based on your statements they are in a catch 22 -- because their relationship with anyone else by definition would be both homosexual and heterosexual -- unless you intend to invade their privacy to find out exactly how they chose to express their intimacy.
----------------------------------------------------------
I guess that they could whatever they wish. What would I care. It does beg questions of logistics and placement and technique. I don't think that they could marry themselves though since they are one person. If they get themselves pregnant, can they be arrested for incest?
What about that fact are you unclear on?
The people can not vote on basic rights. These are outlined in the document that gave the people the right (basic right) to vote -- the US Constitution.
Are you saying we can vote to "stop voting".
Your premise is wrong. You should really give it up, these other posters have you beat by a mile on facts and legal precedence.
What is this"lies" nonsense? When you folks run out of intelligent arument, you just have to start the insults, don't you.
I'm with you buddy. I'm just telling the reasons that I think it could be overturned on appeal. Not to mention that it was ruled on by a openly gay judge in San Francisco. There will be questions of bias.
That's the truth, isn't it?
.
Well, basically, perish, it's because you're willing to throw reason and the Constitution out of the window in favor of it.
------------------------
The constitution protects people on the basis of race, creed, color, ethnicity, sex, and national origin. Some people have tried to assert that "sex" means sexual orientation but the supreme court has said no. There does not exist such a thing as gay rights legally in the U.S. Not supporting anything based on "gay rights" does not mean you are being unconstitutional.
You are not going to change my mind on this. I don't see you with one foot to stand on.
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.
If you think there's equality, you're high.
There is no such thing as "gay rights" legally recognized in the USA. You cannot discriminate against that which does not exist. I'm just telling how it is. Write your congressman if you don't like the truth.
Sorry, but that's a very weak argument which holds no water.
If you say anything about treligion, they will swarm like flies to attack you and your faith. They prayed for a pony on their sixth birthday and never forgave God for not getting them one.
Gays have the same rights of marriage as any one else. Heterosexuals can't marry people of the same gender either. Love is not a quantifiable entity under the law. This ruling stands a good chance of losing on appeal.
on what basis are they being discriminated, legally?