Some gay-rights foes claim they now are bullied

Anne Ominous wrote:

Who the hell owns this country anyway if it isn't the people? Why should an activist judge or a handful of turncoat legislators be able to dictate to millions against their will? They should not, and that is why we have the referendum process.

What the hell are you talking about, dumbass? There is no referendum process in New York.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. The President of the United States just came out in favor of allowing gay couples to marry.

Not surprising, he has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth on almost every issue around. He also represents about the same percentage that was just expressed;

"A majority of North Carolina voters on Tuesday approved a controversial amendment that will write a ban on same-sex marriage as well as civil unions for both gay and straight couples into the state Constitution, according to the Associated Press.

With most precincts reporting, the amendment was passing by a 61 percent to 39 percent margin."

The truth is, the closer gays get to marriage, the more the distortions will be exposed. A rude awakening...

but also said it was a state issue so he doesn't have to do anything. He would tell you he was white to get your vote. He just gave North Carolina to the republicans. I don't think he is too bright

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. The President of the United States just came out in favor of allowing gay couples to marry.

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Not surprising, he has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth on almost every issue around. He also represents about the same percentage that was just expressed;
"A majority of North Carolina voters on Tuesday approved a controversial amendment that will write a ban on same-sex marriage as well as civil unions for both gay and straight couples into the state Constitution, according to the Associated Press.
With most precincts reporting, the amendment was passing by a 61 percent to 39 percent margin."
The truth is, the closer gays get to marriage, the more the distortions will be exposed. A rude awakening...

Spam, spam and spam
Spam eggs and spam

Honest AbeL wrote:

but also said it was a state issue so he doesn't have to do anything. He would tell you he was white to get your vote. He just gave North Carolina to the republicans. I don't think he is too bright
<quoted text>

I've suspected for a long time that he pulled a Michael Jackson skin color reversal and is really Jimmy Carter with a Nancy Pelosi face lift too.

When the Bill of Rights was first proposed, the major argument against it was that by specifying some rights that the government was not free to violate, there would be the implication that the government was free to violate any rights not specifically protected in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment was written to address this concern. It states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Case law, through the Supreme Court, has established marriage as one of those previously unlisted fundamental rights, on 14 separate occasions.

The 14th amendment says no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Equal Protection Clause “‘neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.’(SCOTUS)

The U.S. Supreme Court said: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

While it may take years, this imposition of prejudice and discrimination is an example of the denial of equal rights the constitution was intended to prevent.

Moans a Lot wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. The President of the United States just came out in favor of allowing gay couples to marry.

bArab is a desperate little man. His pet legislation is a good as dead. So is his re-election campaign. That's why he's throwing down his prayer rug in hopes that the homosexuals will somehow help him.

lol

:)

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
What the hell are you talking about, dumbass? There is no referendum process in New York.

dumbass is right!

Where did I say NY, dumbass

lol

There is a Constitutional Convention process however, which would lead to a public vote.

Moans a Lot wrote:

<quoted text>
WRONG!
SCOTUS decides.

Keep clinging to that security blanket lol

Meanwhile we'll keep amending State Constitutions to protect Traditional Marriage.

:)

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Not surprising, he has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth on almost every issue around.

Exactly. He doesn't give a shit about homo-marriage. He just wants votes and campaign money.

Honest AbeL wrote:

but also said it was a state issue so he doesn't have to do anything. He would tell you he was white to get your vote. He just gave North Carolina to the republicans. I don't think he is too bright
<quoted text>

Spot on!

Not Done Babbling wrote:

When the Bill of Rights was first proposed, the major argument against it was that by specifying some rights that the government was not free to violate, there would be the implication that the government was free to violate any rights not specifically protected in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment was written to address this concern. It states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Case law, through the Supreme Court, has established marriage as one of those previously unlisted fundamental rights, on 14 separate occasions.
The 14th amendment says no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Equal Protection Clause “‘neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.’(SCOTUS)
The U.S. Supreme Court said: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
While it may take years, this imposition of prejudice and discrimination is an example of the denial of equal rights the constitution was intended to prevent.

It's not an equal rights issue. Homosexuals have the same opportunity to marry as anyone else.

It's not a discrimination issue. Homosexual have the same opportunity to marry as anyone else.

Also, it's been a while since I've been on a bus but I don't think they have signs in them directing homoz to the back. Neither to they have homoz only drinking fountains or eateries.

Equal rights in housing, public accommodations, employment, credit, and many of the other rights still not covered equally by the feds and many states are examples where equality is denied.

"In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion: DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."

"Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

Gill v. OPM
"In sum, this court is soundly convinced, based on the foregoing analysis, that the government's proffered rationales, past and current, are without "footing in the realities of the subject addressed by DOMA." And "when the proffered rationales for a law are clearly and manifestly implausible, a reviewing court may infer that animus is the only explicable basis. Because animus alone cannot constitute a legitimate government interest, " this court finds that DOMA lacks a rational basis to support it.

This court simply "cannot say that DOMA is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which this court could discern a relationship to legitimate government interests. Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit.

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Anne Ominous wrote:

<quoted text>
bArab is a desperate little man. His pet legislation is a good as dead. So is his re-election campaign. That's why he's throwing down his prayer rug in hopes that the homosexuals will somehow help him.
lol
:)

Attempting to infer that the President is a Muslim reveals your insanity.

Anne Ominous wrote:

<quoted text>
Keep clinging to that security blanket lol
Meanwhile we'll keep amending State Constitutions to protect Traditional Marriage.
:)

Protect traditional marriage?

hahahahahah
ahahahaahha
aahahhahahaha

That's a good one! If you were REALLY interested in protecting marriage you would outlaw divorce.

Anne Ominous wrote:

<quoted text>
dumbass is right!
Where did I say NY, dumbass
lol
There is a Constitutional Convention process however, which would lead to a public vote.

The last Constitutional Convention took place in 1787. You don't have the votes to call another one.

Anne Ominous wrote:

<quoted text>
Keep clinging to that security blanket lol
Meanwhile we'll keep amending State Constitutions to protect Traditional Marriage.
:)

Skipped civics class, eh? Why am I not surprised? One descision by SCOTUS could make all your State Amendments go poof.

Well, gays, you've had your perverse little way, and have had it at the expense of others, but that's all coming to an end. My credentials will again speak for academic excellence when your sick fetish is no more. As of now, gay is at its wane thanks to the normal and decent people who have taken a stand against your perversion and all others that legitimizing it would have cleared the way for (i.e. bestiality and pedophilia). It was a ruinous little run, but your time is up.

My sausage dont squirt!