Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):
Is interracial marriage a right?

Nope.   Marriage is not a right.

And, just so we're clear, you're ok with government not allowing interracial marriage?

I don't make laws.   Which one of these words is confusing you?  "Nope.   Marriage is not a right."

Want to drive?  Get a license.
Want a gun?  Get a license.
Want to marry?  Get a license.

To the best of my knowledge, only one of those is addressed in the Constituion(an amendment at that) and you STILL HAVE TO GET A LICENSE.   That doesn't sound like a "right" to me.   Sounds like you have to meet specific conditions.   

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 5/15/2012 2:30:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I don't care if gay people marry.  What bugs me is that they've tried to pass laws in California (bastion of liberalism) TWICE and failed.  One of those years was 2008 when Obama got elected by a big margin here.   And even though they can't get unanimity from the Obama-mandate,  they're still whining about it.

Listen, if you can't get a law passed in CA granting the "privilege" for SSM, then it's not something that enough people think is a "right", even in the gayest state in the union.  If you don't like it, move to MA or some state that recognizes your civil union as a "marriage".

If it requires a special law to make it legal, then it isn't a "right"... it's a privilege.

Same sex couples had the right to marry in California prior to 2008.  Prop 8, the 2008 law you're referring to, banned same sex marriage.  That law has now been overturned in Federal Court.

Posted by toddcommish on 5/15/2012 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 5/15/2012 2:30:00 PM (view original):
Personally, I don't care if gay people marry.  What bugs me is that they've tried to pass laws in California (bastion of liberalism) TWICE and failed.  One of those years was 2008 when Obama got elected by a big margin here.   And even though they can't get unanimity from the Obama-mandate,  they're still whining about it.

Listen, if you can't get a law passed in CA granting the "privilege" for SSM, then it's not something that enough people think is a "right", even in the gayest state in the union.  If you don't like it, move to MA or some state that recognizes your civil union as a "marriage".

If it requires a special law to make it legal, then it isn't a "right"... it's a privilege.

Same sex couples had the right to marry in California prior to 2008.  Prop 8, the 2008 law you're referring to, banned same sex marriage.  That law has now been overturned in Federal Court.

Wrong.  Same-sex couples had the right to marry for about five months in CA.  Prior to that, there were several failed attempts to pass laws through the voting system.  The law has been deemed unconstitutional by an appeals court, but is still in effect (legally) because of pending appeals to the overturn ruling.

The only gay marriages in CA prior to 2008 were in San Francisco (big surprise) because Gavin Newsom decided that state laws didn't apply to his fiefdom.

CA still recognizes civil unions/domestic partners for insurance purposes, contracts, etc.  (That's part of why I don't get all the hullaballoo).  The only difference is the WORD "marriage".

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):
Is interracial marriage a right?

Nope.   Marriage is not a right.

And, just so we're clear, you're ok with government not allowing interracial marriage?

I don't make laws.   Which one of these words is confusing you?  "Nope.   Marriage is not a right."

Want to drive?  Get a license.
Want a gun?  Get a license.
Want to marry?  Get a license.

To the best of my knowledge, only one of those is addressed in the Constituion(an amendment at that) and you STILL HAVE TO GET A LICENSE.   That doesn't sound like a "right" to me.   Sounds like you have to meet specific conditions.   

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Loving v. Viriginia

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):
Is interracial marriage a right?

Nope.   Marriage is not a right.

And, just so we're clear, you're ok with government not allowing interracial marriage?

I don't make laws.   Which one of these words is confusing you?  "Nope.   Marriage is not a right."

Want to drive?  Get a license.
Want a gun?  Get a license.
Want to marry?  Get a license.

To the best of my knowledge, only one of those is addressed in the Constituion(an amendment at that) and you STILL HAVE TO GET A LICENSE.   That doesn't sound like a "right" to me.   Sounds like you have to meet specific conditions.   

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Loving v. Viriginia

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 1:33:00 PM (view original):
The CA state supreme court granted same sex couples the right to marry.

Then a bunch of activists got involved and passed a proposition taking away that right.

Because of those activists, we have more government in our lives, telling us who can and can't get married.

Posted by toddcommish on 5/15/2012 3:06:00 PM (view original):
I wonder if they called her Mildred "past the diving" Jeter...

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/15/2012 3:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 1:33:00 PM (view original):
The CA state supreme court granted same sex couples the right to marry.

Then a bunch of activists got involved and passed a proposition taking away that right.

Because of those activists, we have more government in our lives, telling us who can and can't get married.

The CA SC said the state Constitution allowed same sex marriage.

The PEOPLE of the state voted for an amendment to the state constituion.

Now a small group of Government officials told millions of people that they are wrong.

Posted by tecwrg2 on 5/15/2012 3:40:00 PM (view original):
The Federalist papers also argued against specifically amending a "Bill of Rights" (arguably, the most important section of the Constitution) onto the Constitution.

So the Federalist papers are not exactly "perfect" documents.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):
Is interracial marriage a right?

Nope.   Marriage is not a right.

And, just so we're clear, you're ok with government not allowing interracial marriage?

I don't make laws.   Which one of these words is confusing you?  "Nope.   Marriage is not a right."

Want to drive?  Get a license.
Want a gun?  Get a license.
Want to marry?  Get a license.

To the best of my knowledge, only one of those is addressed in the Constituion(an amendment at that) and you STILL HAVE TO GET A LICENSE.   That doesn't sound like a "right" to me.   Sounds like you have to meet specific conditions.   

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Loving v. Viriginia

Thanks.  Let's concentrate on this:   fundamental to our very existence and survival

First, we don't need to be married to exist.    Once we're born, we exist.  Marriage is just something we do(and I'm not sure why other than cultural upbringing).
Second, for the species to survive, it must procreate.   You don't have to be married to procreate but, in many religious circles, having children out of wedlock is frowned upon.  Take religion out of the equation and marriage doesn't necessitate "survival".

So, with that in mind, do you think SSM in necessary for existence or survival?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 4:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 2:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 2:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):
Is interracial marriage a right?

Nope.   Marriage is not a right.

And, just so we're clear, you're ok with government not allowing interracial marriage?

I don't make laws.   Which one of these words is confusing you?  "Nope.   Marriage is not a right."

Want to drive?  Get a license.
Want a gun?  Get a license.
Want to marry?  Get a license.

To the best of my knowledge, only one of those is addressed in the Constituion(an amendment at that) and you STILL HAVE TO GET A LICENSE.   That doesn't sound like a "right" to me.   Sounds like you have to meet specific conditions.   

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Loving v. Viriginia

Thanks.  Let's concentrate on this:   fundamental to our very existence and survival

First, we don't need to be married to exist.    Once we're born, we exist.  Marriage is just something we do(and I'm not sure why other than cultural upbringing).
Second, for the species to survive, it must procreate.   You don't have to be married to procreate but, in many religious circles, having children out of wedlock is frowned upon.  Take religion out of the equation and marriage doesn't necessitate "survival".

So, with that in mind, do you think SSM in necessary for existence or survival?

No comment?