We are Democrats .. and we're against gay marriage

[^_^ 5,021]

obama doesn't want to show his long form because he knows eric will laugh at him.

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

but it is nasty to impose your beliefs onto other people and deny them the ability to do something as innocuous as marriage, simply because their sexual orientation is different from yours. and it's nasty to butt into something that has ** all to do with you, and treat people like sub-humans because of their sexual orientation. do you not believe in atheist marriage, or jewish marriage, or buddhist marriage either because you're not any of those things? how on earth is it any of yr danm business if two gay people want to get married?

oh goodness gracious, its you questioning whatever I post again. I dont support homosexuality, period. Whether its bf bf, gf gf, or want to be married. I dont support it. It is what it is. Everyone believes in something and against other things.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The court had an "opinion" on the ruling that it's a basic civil right.

No, the court issued a ruling that marriage is a basic civil right and invalidated a state's marriage law on that basis. It's not that hard, Paul. If you want to see, open your eyes. Or keep them shut and pretend that the last 200 some odd years didn't happen.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Obama 2012 1,714]

No, the court issued a ruling that marriage is a basic civil right and invalidated a state's marriage law on that basis. It's not that hard, Paul. If you want to see, open your eyes. Or keep them shut and pretend that the last 200 some odd years didn't happen.

Dude, again, you're missing the point.

There's a DIFFERENCE in ruling of PREJUDICE of a current law, and actually having a law.

You can argue all you want to, but the Federal Government does not have marriage laws. There is no mention in the constitution either.

If two individuals want to call themselves married, then so be it. They can choose do so. HOWEVER, a State does not have to have any type of marriage contract on the books and there's not a damn thing the Federal Government can do about it, until there is a Federal Marriage Law.

SCOTUS can't create and dictate state laws. The only thing the SCOTUS can do is decide whether or not that law violates either A) The constitution or B) Current standing Federal Law that the state law might be impeding.

If a state does not offer a certain service, then the SCOTUS cannot force them to. That's not the way things work, and it's never been the way things work.

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

oh goodness gracious, its you questioning whatever I post again. I dont support homosexuality, period. Whether its bf bf, gf gf, or want to be married. I dont support it. It is what it is. Everyone believes in something and against other things.

and I'll also add I dont support adultery or fornication. One of my siblings has committed adultery against his wife and I do not support his decision. I have another sibling that commits fornication and I do not support his decision either. I do not have a homosexual sibling or else I would not support that decision either. None of my family, friends or co workers get treated any differently by me. They know what I support and accept to be moral or not moral and it is what it is.

[^_^ 5,021]

and I'll also add I dont support adultery or fornication. One of my siblings has committed adultery against his wife and I do not support his decision. I have another sibling that commits fornication and I do not support his decision either. I do not have a homosexual sibling or else I would not support that decision either. None of my family, friends or co workers get treated any differently by me. They know what I support and accept to be moral or not moral and it is what it is.

In what way do you communicate your disapproval?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Dude, again, you're missing the point.

Dude, you failing again to stay focused. Marriage being a basic civil right in this country was not an opinion of the SCOTUS but a RULING. Got it?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Dude, you failing again to stay focused. Marriage being a basic civil right in this country was not an opinion of the SCOTUS but a RULING. Got it?

A ruling on a current law on the books.

If no marriage contract exists, then the SCOTUS cannot force a state to marry people.

SCOTUS can "say" or "rule" any way it chooses so long as it's making that ruling on a law. However it's beyond the scope of power of the SCOTUS to create laws. This is US Government/Checks & Balances 101.

Again, they tell states not to be prejudice in their laws, but they cannot tell states to have certain laws.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I dont support homosexuality, period. Whether its bf bf, gf gf, or want to be married. I dont support it. It is what it is. Everyone believes in something and against other things.

The right of people to get married does not require your approval or support. You can believe whatever you want without that making a first bit of a difference in terms of Adam and Steve still being owed the right to marry. It's just that simple.

Now, if you prefer a jurisdiction where basic rights of same sex partners are violated, I suggest you start looking for property in Somalia, Saudi Arabia or perhaps Uganda. You'll be amongst like-minded people and won't have to worry so much about people of certain sexual orientation - people that God sent into our midst - being afforded their basic, God given rights. I hear they have real bargains on villas in Mogadishu.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A ruling on a current law on the books.

No, the ruling on the law was based on the ruling that marriage is indeed a basic civil right - that point being the fact you are trying to deny. I wonder why I have to break this down to a constitutional scholar like I'm talking to a second grader. Perhaps you're less of a scholar than you'd like to claim?

Edited May 20, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Obama 2012 1,714]

No, the ruling on the law was based on the ruling that marriage is indeed a basic civil right - that point being the fact you are trying to deny. I wonder why I have to break this down to a constitutional scholar like I'm talking to a second grader. Perhaps you're less of a scholar than you'd like to claim?

Dude, seriously - SCOTUS can say all it wants at the end of the day, it CANNOT CREATE LAW. It can only Rule on laws.

If a state doesn't offer a certain service to anyone at all, then the SCOTUS cannot force them to provide that service.

Only Legislation from the Legislative Branch of the government can do that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Dude, seriously - SCOTUS can say all it wants at the end of the day, it CANNOT CREATE LAW. It can only Rule on laws.

Dude, seriously, focus on what you've been trying to sell. You are claiming that marriage is not a right. It is.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Dude, seriously, focus on what you've been trying to sell. You are claiming that marriage is not a right. It is.

Where in Federal Law or the Constitution is it a right? Please. Point it out. Go Ahead. I'll wait all night.

The SCOTUS can say that everyone must own a dog. That doesn't make it so.

If a state DOES NOT OFFER a service, a certain type of contract, then tell me by what authority does the SCOTUS have to force them to have such a law on the books.

The SCOTUS can ONLY rule on Law. That's it. That's all it can do. It can't tell states and/or people what to do or not to do just because it thinks something should be a certain way. If it did, then we'd be living in a totalitarian state right now ruled by judges.

[^_^ 5,021]

Dude....

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Where in Federal Law or the Constitution is it a right?

So the SCOTUS is wrong in claiming that marriage is a basic civil right? They don't know sh!t and you know it all? Get over yourself, kiddo.