The rights of the people of California are struck down by the Supreme Court

Translated: I'm soooooooooo sad that the Homosexuals get the same rights as me.

The times, they are a changin.

 

Don't make up silly arguments and attribute them to me. I am the one who a year ago suggested if DOMA fell, that Texas should write into our marriage statutes a federal marriage. Marriage for ANY two consenting adults who represent on federal documents that they are so married. Minus all the state laws regarding presumptions of paternity or presumtion of sexual relations. Creating marriages in Texas recognized by the federal government, when similiar marriages created in other states would be unrecognized by both those states and the federal government.

 

We do, the law is not allowed to. The law cannot say "whites get a tax break, whites don't." Its the 14th amendment. We have it. Sorry I'm not sorry.

No, children cannot consent. This has nothing to do with US law. Children simply cannot consent. They have not matured enough to do so. Animals can't consent either. Even if they could, which is false, your argument would still be irrelevant. Do you think interracial marriages should be legal? If yes, then how are you not opening the door to children getting married? All your same stupid arguments can be applied to interracial marriages too.

I'm not against polygamy. I am personally, but not legally. But that's still not relevant, because polygamy is a separate issue from gay marriage, just as gay marriage is a separate issue from interracial marriage. If you want to be against gay marriage because it leads to polygamy, then you have to be against interracial marriage too. You're the one trying to lump them together.

I didn't say the Supreme Court said that. Let me refresh your pathetically short-term memory with my older post which you responded to, claiming to have read the documents I references:

I specifically mentioned the decision of the lower court. I told you to read what they said. If you did, you would realize they said exactly what I have been saying. Your "arguments" get more infantile by the minute. I am starting to wonder if you are even old enough to marry yourself. Maybe that's why you keep bringing it up.

 

um what's your problem with that?

 

you know telling us why something else is ok is not an argument for why gay marriage is wrong

 

no u don't have to be gay to be a bigot towards gay people

 

and what harm is that? and what's wrong or unclean about sex out of alif qadr approved settings?

 

you know anal sex is not required to be homosexual; or performed by all of them of either gender or limited to them you know this but you wont shut up about anal sex why?
why the obsession?

- - - Updated - - -

not me its to much fun

 

and this is why tex is apposed to all legal rulings when ever they involve the use of a chain saw as chain saws are not in the constitution therefore nothing you can do with them or about them have anything to do with the law and why there use or rules concerning them can never be tied to any ones rights

 

It's done all the time. For instance, polygamy is not accepted....and it's a form of marriage. Adults having sex with minors is not accepted legally either......see Nambla. Bottom line is society has the right to decide what kind of institutions they will have, which ones they make legal and which ones they don't........and traditional marriage; that being one between one man and one woman has been our tradition since the beginning....as it has been in most other countries. The family unit.....consisting of one man/one woman and the children that may result from that UNION, is the basic structure of our entire society; always has been. And it's what bring stability to our society. There is no reason to change that now....and certainly not without a vote from the people of the country. Courts shouldn't be deciding such things.....just as courts had no business interpreting that "privacy" in the Constitution's privacy clause meant we could kill our babies before they were born.

 

"The biggest harm is probably that we can't get married and we love each other," added Zarrillo. "And the harm of not being able to call him my husband."

Really? So, he's being "harmed" because he cannot call his partner his husband??? For his information, the definition of husband is this:

• hus·band
  
  /ˈhəzbənd/
  
  [TABLE="class: vk_txt ts"]
  [TR]
  [TD]Noun
  [TABLE="class: ts"]
  [TR]
  [TD]A married man considered in relation to his wife.[/TD]
  [/TR]
  [/TABLE]
  [/TD]
  [/TR]
  [/TABLE]
  
  
  And the definition of wife is:
  • wife
    
    [TABLE="class: vk_txt ts"]
    [TR]
    [TD]Noun
    [TABLE="class: ts"]
    [TR]
    [TD]
    1. A married woman considered in relation to her husband.
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/us/supreme-court-preview-prop-8/index.html

What gays are doing with all this is distancing themselves from the rest of the population. Even though they are a very small percentage of our entire population, they are insisting on changing things for EVERYONE else and insist on it regardless of what the majority has said over and over again with voting.....they are alienating themselves from society by going through the courts to get it done.

 

um im hetero sexual I support gay rights you don't represent hetero sexuals any more then I do and you've managed alienate yourself from homosexuals and hetero sexuals way to go

gay people getting married to one another are in the same boat as hetero sexual couples they meet all the same requirements you want to discriminate against them without sensible cause and that's why gay marriage is gaining ground

 

Sexual intercourse is meant for lawfully married couples as in man and woman, not male and male, female and female, male and animal or female and animal. The purpose for sexual intercourse is for reproduction as well as for the initial and continued consummation of marriage. Sexual intercourse was never intended to be a plaything; the way that you newer people on the planet like to view everything as an event for pleasure and frolicking. Everything that is of creation, not that which is manufactured for the purposes of sport and play, was established or created for a serious purpose. This is one of the reasons why Anbiya of old had a terrible time in reforming your ways; such men could not convince you to leave your immature psychological make-up in place of seeing things as they are and for what they are.

 

There is a reason to change it if you are doomed and want to take everyone else with you to your doom.

 

meant by who? what laws? whose purpose? intended by who? created by who?

- - - Updated - - -

sounds like you

 

Then address him in a PM, not a public forum!

 

Prior legal precedent has established that a state can nullify a marriage of it's citizens that leave the state to marry to avoid state restrictions on their marriage in their state of citizenship. A couple could leave Texas to marry but would have to establish citizenship in the state that doesn't prohibit same-sex marriage. The laws for establishing citizenship in the state vary by state but can typically take between 90 days and six months. This can vary and could require nothing more than getting a drivers license and registering to vote but it still imposes considerable time and/or expense on the couple.

My point being is that it's not all that easy for a same-sex couple to obtain legal married status in a state that prohibits it and won't recognize it. Texans taking a weekend flight to WA to marry and returning to Texas could result in Texas nullifying the marriage.

 

Back to the point.

The "People" do not have a "Right" to impose unconstitutional law and have never had that Right.

Prop 8 was unconstitutional. Get over it.

 

Good; in which case it has no effect on you whatsoever and you can stop whining about it. Right?

 

Same-sex marriage does not adversely affect opposite-sex marriage in any manner. It is amazing that those that oppose same-sex marriage are not adversely affected by it.

It's sort of like the Tea Partiers that complain about taxes they're not paying and complain about fully funded expenditures like Social Security that still has over two trillion dollars in reserve while ignoring the US military where about 50% of the expenditures are funded with borrowing.

 

Unfounded bigotry knowns no logic for those indulging in it; it's an unfathomable challenge for them. That's why bigots are so easy to spot.

 

I'm not, that is what you were arguing. Lying about it doesn't change anything.

More importantly, you said DOMA ensures gay people are treated equally. Meaning that 38 states now treat homosexuals UNequally. You really can't wriggle out of this one.

 

The difference is that the issue of consent is more difficult in a familial relationship. Independence of undue influence is key to a marriage. There is no way that a familial relationship would not have undue influence if one person raised the other, or if one person grew up with the other.

 

And we're supposed to decide that in unknown relationships between people that "undue influence" exists? Seriously? Some people could say that "love" is an undue influence that clouds the mind preventing rational decisions and they'd be correct.

If the people are adults beyond the legal age of consent it is their responsibility, not ours, to make decisions based upon informed consent.

 

If they want the state to recognize their marriage. I was only talking about the Federal benefits. Last nights local news had a gay man married to a Mexican National that can only come to the US to visit him on a visa. Now his boy spouse can get a resident alien card and begin the process of gaining citizenship, here in Texas. O