Romney Signs on to Anti-Gay Group's Campaign Pledge

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
There are 304 'Charles Spears' in the US white pages and 5 'Chuck Spears.' The gentleman refers to himself as "Chuck Spears", a legitimate name. I think RoHo is overly sensitive and the biggest racist posting in this thread.

ROHO is just another pc liberal who is so brainwashed by the gay left that she spends all day as a Topix lobbyiest for them.

She claims that she is not gay ,maybe she works for Rachel Maddow as a Topix poster.

luv Sarah Palin wrote:

<quoted text>
For you it wasn't an issue. It was a good thing but the other students may not agree with you.

Everybody knew. Out of 1800 students less than a handful cared. One faculty member seemed to. One of our teachers who was Lesbian was honored by 3 Presidents in a row for her work with UNICEF and her own Kids of the World Amateur Radio Communications for Peace project.

Not everyone is as small minded as you appear to be.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
And many intelligent people

Ever hear the saying "it takes one to know one?"
With that in mind, what would you know about intelligent people?

lides wrote:

And many intelligent people appreciate the court upholding the US Constitution, and it's guarantee of equal protection of the laws for all. Have you read the decision? The court was quite decisive in dismissing arguments of procreation as irrelevant.

Yes they were, that was their first mistake. To ignore family law and write your own, where is the sense?

We've capitulated on many rights, same sex couples can adopt. We don't want to keep getting screwed when activist courts write law instead of apply law.

The Court found for their mascots, no surprise. Let's see how the Democratic Party tries to handle it.

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
It's funny how you argue out of both sides of your mouth! And you don't even see it.
I don't have the equal right to marriage a man does.
A man can marry a woman. I can't.

You have the equal right all women have, to marry a man. You want to be equal to a man? That's not "equality", that's abnormality.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Yes they were, that was their first mistake. To ignore family law and write your own, where is the sense?
We've capitulated on many rights, same sex couples can adopt. We don't want to keep getting screwed when activist courts write law instead of apply law.
The Court found for their mascots, no surprise. Let's see how the Democratic Party tries to handle it.

What the hell are you babbling on about now? Jesus, Brian! "Capitulated on rights?" please..... do tell. You shouldn't use big words you don't understand.

oh Rea11y __ wrote:

<quoted text>You have the equal right all women have, to marry a man.

Would you want a lesbian marrying your son? Or a gay guy marrying your daughter? Think about it.

oh Rea11y __ wrote:

You want to be equal to a man? That's not "equality", that's abnormality.

http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/task...
Snip: "...the APA believes that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and to all its attendant benefits, rights, and privileges."

Sue Wee wrote:

What the hell are you babbling on about now? Jesus, Brian! "Capitulated on rights?" please..... do tell. You shouldn't use big words you don't understand.

PC speech codes are censorship. The social safety net has become a net ensnaring the black family in crime, corruption and poverty. It ain't pretty, the government is spending money our children won't have, tyranny through the left.

Brian_G wrote:

Yes they were, that was their first mistake. To ignore family law and write your own, where is the sense?

Brian, arguments of procreation are irrelevant.
1. Procreation is neither a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of marriage.
2. Marriage is not required for procreation, which is to say unmarried people can and do procreate.
3. Allowing same sex couples to marry in noway affects the procreative abilities or rights of any couple, married or not.
The justices in no way ignored or affected family law, these arguments were, rightly, judged irrelevant.

Brian_G wrote:

We've capitulated on many rights, same sex couples can adopt. We don't want to keep getting screwed when activist courts write law instead of apply law.

Brian, this is not an activist decision. Equal protection of the laws is guaranteed all persons within a state's jurisdiction by the 14th Amendment.
1. Marriage is a protection of the law.
2. Homosexuals persons within a state's jurisdiction are persons.

Brian_G wrote:

The Court found for their mascots, no surprise. Let's see how the Democratic Party tries to handle it.

No, the court upheld the US Constitution, which is what they are sworn to do.

lides wrote:

Brian, arguments of procreation are irrelevant.

It would have been great if your parents felt that way.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Brian, arguments of procreation are irrelevant.
1. Procreation is neither a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of marriage.
2. Marriage is not required for procreation, which is to say unmarried people can and do procreate.
3. Allowing same sex couples to marry in noway affects the procreative abilities or rights of any couple, married or not.
3B.The justices in no way ignored or affected family law, these arguments were, rightly, judged irrelevant.
<quoted text>
Brian, this is not an activist decision. Equal protection of the laws is guaranteed all persons within a state's jurisdiction by the 14th Amendment.
1. Marriage is a protection of the law.
2. Homosexuals persons within a state's jurisdiction are persons.
<quoted text>
No, the court upheld the US Constitution, which is what they are sworn to do.

3. noway?
2. Some persons are homosexuals. They didn't uphold the constitution, they went against a state's right to regulate marriage.

Wondering wrote:

2. Some persons are homosexuals. They didn't uphold the constitution, they went against a state's right to regulate marriage.

This argument works to a point.
"...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."
US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1

Can you cite a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would make such a restriction constitutional?

lides wrote:

Brian, arguments of procreation are irrelevant.
1. Procreation is neither a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of marriage.
2. Marriage is not required for procreation, which is to say unmarried people can and do procreate.
3. Allowing same sex couples to marry in noway affects the procreative abilities or rights of any couple, married or not.
The justices in no way ignored or affected family law, these arguments were, rightly, judged irrelevant.

Wrongly judged, ignoring precedent and arguing for their mascot pets.

.

lides wrote:

Brian, this is not an activist decision. Equal protection of the laws is guaranteed all persons within a state's jurisdiction by the 14th Amendment.
1. Marriage is a protection of the law.
2. Homosexuals persons within a state's jurisdiction are persons.

No, the court upheld the US Constitution, which is what they are sworn to do.

The 14th Amendment explicitly recognizes man and woman as unequal, by law. They ignored the written law and used compassion instead. That's why they made bad law.

Brian_G wrote:

Wrongly judged, ignoring precedent and arguing for their mascot pets.

Feel free to explain why you believe so. Your statement does not rise to the level of a rational argument, or any argument whatsoever for that matter.

Brian_G wrote:

The 14th Amendment explicitly recognizes man and woman as unequal, by law. They ignored the written law and used compassion instead. That's why they made bad law.

Those passages have since been rescinded. The US Supreme Court has held that before constitutional rights may be infringed, doing so must serve a compelling state interest. There was no such interest served by preventing women from voting, so the congress passed women's suffrage. There was no such interest served by segregation, so the US Supreme Court struck Plessy v Fergusson.

Can you indicate any such interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry? I suspect not.

lides wrote:

Can you cite a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry that would make such a restriction constitutional?

See Baker v Nelson

lides wrote:

...Those passages have since been rescinded. The US Supreme Court has held that before constitutional rights may be infringed, doing so must serve a compelling state interest. There was no such interest served by preventing women from voting, so the congress passed women's suffrage. There was no such interest served by segregation, so the US Supreme Court struck Plessy v Fergusson.
Can you indicate any such interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry? I suspect not.

The court demanded evidence of state interest then disallowed testimony and proof on the role of marriage in procreation and child rearing. They said it was irrelevant, but offered no standard of law or precedent.

Marriage has always been between husband and wife, gays have married, they aren't harmed in any way since everyone was born of heterosexual union.

Within 10 years of Brown v Board of Education, the Congress enacted racial civil rights law. There is a legislative backlash against same sex marriage pending. The law is fine, we need better lawyers and jurists.

lides wrote:

...Can you indicate any such interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry? I suspect not.

The purpose of marriage, that children would be raised by mom and dad. It's a great idea only a leftist could screw up. After messing with the numbers last Century, it's the gender affirmative action ratio they want today.

There are differences between man and woman, that's what makes husband/wife marriage work. Just because the supposed self interest of a same sex couple, a man who doesn't have a bride or a woman who can't find a groom; that's same sex marriage. Pretend adulthood, children dreaming of adoption and taxpayer funded fertility treatments. Wake up.

Brian_G wrote:

The court demanded evidence of state interest then disallowed testimony and proof on the role of marriage in procreation and child rearing. They said it was irrelevant, but offered no standard of law or precedent.

The court does not need a precedent, irrelevant items and arguments are irrelevant. The court clearly indicated that procreative activity was not affected by allowing same sex marriage.

Brian_G wrote:

Marriage has always been between husband and wife, gays have married, they aren't harmed in any way since everyone was born of heterosexual union.

Wow, I see you are combining the irrelevant with the illogical.

A couple's ability to procreate is irrelevant to the protections of marriage. The court affirmed this in their decision, just I I have illustrated many times that couples incapable of procreation are regularly allowed to marry. There simply is no state interest in procreation relative to marriage.

Brian_G wrote:

Within 10 years of Brown v Board of Education, the Congress enacted racial civil rights law.

You realize that you are not helping your case by making this statement, don't you?

Brian_G wrote:

There is a legislative backlash against same sex marriage pending. The law is fine, we need better lawyers and jurists.

No, We don't. What we need are jurists and lawyers who will uphold the constitution, which guarantees equal protection. In the case of Perry v Brown, that is exactly what the court upheld.

Brian_G wrote:

The purpose of marriage, that children would be raised by mom and dad.

Now who's trying to redefine marriage? Brian, there simply is no such definition of legal marriage. As has been pointed out to you, time and time again, procreation or the ability to procreate is neither a prerequisite for, nor a requirement of legal marriage. Your argument is fallacious.

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
There are 304 'Charles Spears' in the US white pages and 5 'Chuck Spears.' The gentleman refers to himself as "Chuck Spears", a legitimate name. I think RoHo is overly sensitive and the biggest racist posting in this thread.

Are you really so stupid you believe what you just posted?
The guy even admitted to having racist IDs in the past.
And what race don't I like?
That should shut you up, finally.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>The purpose of marriage, that children would be raised by mom and dad.

No, it's not stupid.
It's a great idea only a leftist could screw up. After messing with the numbers last Century, it's the gender affirmative action ratio they want today.

Brian_G wrote:

There are differences between man and woman, that's what makes husband/wife marriage work. Just because the supposed self interest of a same sex couple, a man who doesn't have a bride or a woman who can't find a groom; that's same sex marriage. Pretend adulthood, children dreaming of adoption and taxpayer funded fertility treatments. Wake up.

Oh, please, you just post a bunch of Hallmarky BS.
You can't name a single non physical difference between men and women. And MOST marriages don't work.

And stupid, you think Ricky Martin couldn't find a woman if he wanted one!?