One Victory

Bataillon declared in his ruling that under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Nebraska cannot ban same-sex marriages and civil unions.
Click to expand...
 
U.S. Constitution said:
14th. Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Click to expand...

So being gay is a priviledge?
 
No, it's natural. I don't see any gay dogs, buffalo, penguins or anything besides humans. Hence, it must be a choice. If the courts make special provision for lifestyle choices, it must be considered a priviledge. No?
 
Well, I suppose we could go round and round about homosexual behavior that has been shown in almost all animals, but you probably wouldn't give it any credit, just as I won't give your self-rightous ideas that straight is normal and gays are immoral any credit.

Getting married is a priveledge. Sharing your life with another that you love is a priveledge. Until you can prove to me how letting the two guys down the street get married,( legally unioned, or whatever they want to call it ) hurts you, I don't see the big problem with letting gays get married.
 
More importantly, tho. I don't see how refusing to wed to people of the same gender is discriminatory. Two straight men can't get married anymore than two gay men can. Where's the descrimination? Otherwise every pair of roommates is gonna sign up for the tax/medical/insurance/pension benefits.
 
Professur said:
More importantly, tho. I don't see how refusing to wed to people of the same gender is discriminatory. Two straight men can't get married anymore than two gay men can. Where's the descrimination? Otherwise every pair of roommates is gonna sign up for the tax/medical/insurance/pension benefits.
Click to expand...
Interesting perspective. Even if they would have to get legally de-unionized to part ways and get in a new civil union/marriage?
 
PT said:
Getting married is a priveledge. Sharing your life with another that you love is a priveledge.
Click to expand...


Priveledge. Not Right. Thank you for blowing your own arguement right outta the water.
 
PT said:
Interesting perspective. Even if they would have to get legally de-unionized to part ways and get in a new civil union/marriage?
Click to expand...

Everytime I've spoken with a gay marriage supporter (and I have spoken to many) the single common thread that keeps popping up is that a married couple get legal/social benefits that unmarried people don't. Insurance coverage, for starters. That's why I despise what instant divorces, and common-law marriages have done to the instution of marriage. They've run it down to the point that it's only visible values are monetary.
 
Professur said:
Priveledge. Not Right. Thank you for blowing your own arguement right outta the water.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. If you are going to disallow gays from getting married, then disallow 18 year olds too. They obviously are too young to make such a decision. Disallow pregnant women from getting married, they are just forcing their boyfriend to make something legitimate, and are too emotional to make rational decisions. Disallow anyone that has been married before from getting married again too, they don't understand the sanctity of marriage. All these people have the PRIVELEDGE of getting married, why shouldn't gays?
 
So when the family (the basis of society)
has been completely obliterated
and the morals of society have been totally debased
what's next?

What should be the next thing to be done away with?
(don’t say Christian religion)
(and don’t say freedom as in the right to your own paycheck)
(and don’t say freedom as in the right to your own thoughts)…

Too Late they’ve “been there, done that”.
 
So when the family (the basis of society)
has been completely obliterated
and the morals of society have been totally debased
what's next?
Click to expand...
I still think that the heteros of the world have done far more to destroy the morals of society than the gays could ever do.
 
now don't be silly
heh heh
oh ok go ahead be silly

Homo's ain't got nuthin to do with this
it's all about tearing down he bedrock of society.

I needn't list all the other assaults on marriage
over the years now do I?

Equating homosexual union with marriage is but the
latest.
 
PT said:
I still think that the heteros of the world have done far more to destroy the morals of society than the gays could ever do.
Click to expand...

Probably. But that argument is like saying, let's turn anyone who murdered less than five people loose, because serial killers kill more people.


Well, I suppose we could go round and round about homosexual behavior that has been shown in almost all animals, but you probably wouldn't give it any credit, just as I won't give your self-rightous ideas that straight is normal and gays are immoral any credit.
Click to expand...

Hit a nerve, did I?

Until I see animals in the wild engaging in homosexual activity, I will consider it aberrant in humans as well. You may assign any value you like to the terms aberrant, normal, acceptable, or anything else. If that makes me self-righteous, OK, I can live with that tag. I will also refrain from joining you in the name calling.

I oppose same sex unions being legitimate for numerous reasons. One is the increase my health insurance premium will undergo. Another is that I consider it immoral, unnatural, and an abomination. A third is the sanctity of the institution of marriage, which used to mean something. Don't agree? Sue me. I could not possibly care less.
 
PT said:
I don't think so. If you are going to disallow gays from getting married, then disallow 18 year olds too. They obviously are too young to make such a decision. Disallow pregnant women from getting married, they are just forcing their boyfriend to make something legitimate, and are too emotional to make rational decisions. Disallow anyone that has been married before from getting married again too, they don't understand the sanctity of marriage. All these people have the PRIVELEDGE of getting married, why shouldn't gays?
Click to expand...

Um, Pt, Gays have the priveledge to marry, just like everyone else. Noone has the priveledge to marry the same sex. A gay man can marry any woman he wants to, just like any straight man can. People, regardless of persuasion, may only marry the opposite sex. What you're pushing for is the removal of a limitation of the existing law. Not, as you would have it, a descriminatory bias. That marriage, as it stands today, doesn't include who gays want to marry, is tough beans. I know people who want to marry 6 year olds. Can't do it. I know a guy who'd love to marry his sister (they've been fucking since they were bathing together). Can't do it. Hell, I actually know a guy who's attempted to marry (over the web) his dog. Can't do it.

Sound ludicrous? Explain to me, using legally viable terms, how any of them differ from your gays?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top