Add a Comment See all 460 Comments
- which existing law do you wish to be protected by? lol
- Reply to this comment
- 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;
_________________________________________________
you were saying? there is no "privilege" to be denied here. gays have the same privilege as anyone else. - Reply to this comment
- slow, cut and paste the section of the amendment that mentions gay marriage or creating extra rights for gay
_____________________________________________________ - Reply to this comment
- Equal protection covers a wide range. Posted by slownewsday_05
________________________________________________
Still haven't read the amendment, have you?
The fact that a couple of grandstandinng attorneys are filing suit of "Smelt- Hammer" means nothing. Remember when Dan White used the "Twinkie Defense"?
Anyway. go read the 14th amendment. It never mentions "equal protection", it never mentions man/man marriage, it never mentions discrimination. - Reply to this comment
- Looks like the Gay community got ganked out of thier votes by BHO. Welcome to the club. I really don't care if there is ever a federal law recognizing gay marriage and I hope DOMA never gets repealed. But this just goes to show the flip floppiness of BHO. Can you really trust him now?
- Reply to this comment
- You have been name calling all day.
Posted by slownewsday_05 at 11:21 PM : Jun 14, 2009
Nope, this was graduation party weekend. I posted for about 15 minutes first thing Sunday morning.
Not only are you wrong, you just don't bother to read anything. Including the 14th Amendment.---LOL
A marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. Anyone can get married-it just has to be between members of the opposite sex! - Reply to this comment
- Hey,SLOW did you ever find the words "equal protection from discrimination" in the 14th amendment? Nope you didn't because they aren't there!!! LOL
I'm starting to think that you've never actually read the Equal Protections Clause of the amendment. Hint: it's section1. - Reply to this comment
- Oh, has this joker been here before? i should have known. it's funny he doesn't seem to be able to differentiate between the issue of same-sex marriage and the noxious guerrilla politics being waged in its pursuit.
It's as if these folks are intent on jamming this up our a55e5 (no pun intended) whether we like it or not.
This is a guerrilla, do whatever to get what you want, type of politics is becoming more prevalent. I have often wondered if the popularity of the show "Survivor" in which treachery and backstabbing were rewarded, hasn't contributed to that.
I know that philosophy was advocated by one of Obama's heroes, a guy name Saul Alinsky, interesting reading if you have the time. In any case, people seem much more tolerant of endless appeals, or politicians breaking promises etc.
This is unfortunate because we never get anything done as a result. Now is a time when we need clarity decisiveness and unity. I disagree with Prop 8, but it passed. Respect the result and better luck next time. Don't clog our courts with endless challenges and appeals because if you do happen to win next time your opponents will do the same.
This is a much weightier issue than simply whether gays can share health insurance (after all when Obama gets done that won't matter!). This is much more a question of the "normative function of the law". That function by which the law proscribes those activities that have proven problematic to people. it is a question of whether we choose to portray homosexuality as a lifestyle...AND MAYBE WE DO..but let's ask the populus.
I suspect the reason for the urgency from the gay community is that they very much want the official Seal of Approval for what has been a source of shame for thousands of years. My initial instinct is to say "hey, why not?". Then i wonder if we should cast off the judgment of our ancestors so lightly.
The often presented analogy of this issue to the Civil Rights Movement , particularly as an argument against public referenda is specious. Blacks were simply striving for the same rights as everyone else. Blacks had been enslaved through no fault of their own, simply because they could be visually identified which made them easier to keep. The issue of interracial marriage was never an issue. A man and a woman had the right to marry, end of story. - Reply to this comment
- You really are a dumbasss.
Posted by slownewsday_05 at 4:44 PM : Jun 14, 2009
Well, there you go with the name calling again, I check this forum for the first time in 4 hours and you're back to your old tricks
Go get 'em tautomer... - Reply to this comment
- Posted by slownewsday_05 at 4:11 PM : Jun 14, 2009
____________
How does having 'some moral objections' equate to being a 'bible thumper'? do those who are not christians not have morals? I am beginning to understand your posts better now. - Reply to this comment
- I think it's safe to say that just because you smelled your father's sweaty t-shirt when you were 14 and felt a strange allure, doesn't entitle you to any special rights.
- Reply to this comment
- Hey, did you ever find the words "equal protection from discrimination" in the 14th amendment? Nope you didn't because they aren't there!!! LOL
- Reply to this comment
- If you refer to gays as "poopshooters", etc, then either you're 12, or you have some moral objections.
_____________________________________________
Call it what it is. You guys do , in fact, shoot poop. It's not as if you have that extra orifice reserved for sexual purposes. That is what you do. If you have a problem with the notion, maybe you should be straight.
Are you truly incapable of humor regarding this issue? That's sad. - Reply to this comment
- Read the part in quotes, above. Equal protection from discrimination.Posted by slownewsday_05
___________________________________________
Where do you see the words "equal protection from discrimination" in the 14th amendment? I just posted the "equal protection clause and it doesn't say that. - Reply to this comment
- As we've established there is not discrimination. everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex. As to Olson and Boies, attorneys love to grandstand, who knows maybe they want to get married themselves.
You gotta love the plaintiffs "Smelt Hammer"...i'll bet they've both "smelt" alot of different "hammers"!
I do find it amusing that you assume that I object to the idead of gay marriage (frankly I couldn't care less) as opposed to the obnoxious "win at any cost' mentality that seems to drive its pursuit. Were i a Californian I would not have voted for Prop8. But once the majority of people have voiced their opposition you should respect their wishes.
After all, you will expect them to respect the outcome if you win. Do you beleive that only those outcomes that you agree with should be respected? - Reply to this comment
- As I said, I'm not particulalry religious, nor do my opinions on this issue have any basis in religion. I doubt you actually know what my opinion is on the matter. There is no reference to marriage in the 14th amendment.
There is a reference to "privileges", but as we've established we all have identical privileges" with respect to marriage.
Do you think that I oppose gay marriage on moral grounds? I'm interested to hear your response on that. - Reply to this comment
- feel free to cite other sections of the amendment if need be....
- Reply to this comment
- 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.
_________________________________________________
care to tell us where this applies to man/man matrimony? its not a "privilege" so it can't be abridged. It's not life, liberty or property. kindly explain what you feel i "don;t understand", bearing in mind that man/man matrimony is not an established right under the law. - Reply to this comment
- 14th amendment provides for equal protection of EXISTING rights, not phantom rights invented by disgruntled misfits to assuage their guilt.
- Reply to this comment
- It was a brilliant move by the CA Supreme Court to force the issue up to the federal level. Posted by slownewsday_05
_________________________________________________
The feds will wash their hands of the issue. At least they still respect the right of people to decide whether they want "Johnny Has Two Daddies and That's Okay!" taught to their kids.
By the way, the prohibition of interracial marriages WAS discrimination precisely because it referred to marriage between a man and a woman. The same right everyone else had. You are asking for extra "rights". - Reply to this comment
