Judge: Ky. must recognize same-sex marriages

[kalm]

Liberal activist judges shouldn't overturn the vote of the people. Let the people of each state decide whether to keep marriage between a man and a woman or not.

Let churches decide.

[89Hen]

Then why don't people have a problem with a law that says you can't marry your sister?

Because incestuous relationships (particularly brother - sister incest) cause all sorts of birth defects and genetic bottlenecking.

It's not the same thing.

I know lots of married couples that don't have children and I know lots of unmarried couples that do have children. Afterall...

marriage is more than just knockin boots

We aren't talking about biology, we are talking about marriage. Marriage isn't a biological function.

Sex is about much, much more than reproduction.

So why is marriage between brother and sister not allowed and why is it unnatural while marriage between two men natural?

[Skjellyfetti]

I would be fine with it as long as they didn't have sex and reproduce and if it was completely consensual. Seems impossible to enforce, though. Maybe sterilize them on a condition of their marriage? Haha.

[AZGrizFan]

Do you have some idea as to what the role of sex is in biology?

Sex is about much, much more than reproduction.

Do you think all sex not for the purposes of reproduction is unnatural?

Well then...I was extremely unnatural this morning...

[dbackjon]

To answer both BDK and FCS:

The people can not pass laws that violate the Constitution. That is why we have a Supreme Court, laws, etc.


So you would be fine if a state passed a law that banned guns completely?
Or a law that made it illegal to practice religion?
Or if Utah required all residents to pay a tithing to the Mormon Church, whether they belonged or not?
It is the same principal, and really not that difficult to understand.

[BDKJMU]

To answer both BDK and FCS:

The people can not pass laws that violate the Constitution. That is why we have a Supreme Court, laws, etc.


So you would be fine if a state passed a law that banned guns completely?
Or a law that made it illegal to practice religion?
Or if Utah required all residents to pay a tithing to the Mormon Church, whether they belonged or not?
It is the same principal, and really not that difficult to understand.

You are comparing 2 things that are expressly mentioned in the Constitution, in the 1st and 2nd Amendments, no less, with something that isn't.

Gun rights are enshrined in the 2nd amendment.

Religious freedoms are enshrined in the Constitution. 1st Amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......."

Gay marriage isn't addressed in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".

Pretty cut and dry. It isn't the same principle, which isn't difficult to understand.

[Ibanez]

Because incestuous relationships (particularly brother - sister incest) cause all sorts of birth defects and genetic bottlenecking.

It's not the same thing.

I know lots of married couples that don't have children and I know lots of unmarried couples that do have children. Afterall...

marriage is more than just knockin boots

We aren't talking about biology, we are talking about marriage. Marriage isn't a biological function.

Sex is about much, much more than reproduction.

So why is marriage between brother and sister not allowed and why is it unnatural while marriage between two men natural?

You know the answer. Marriage is more than sex. But sex produces babies (generally)and we know the dangers of incestuous relationships. The gov't should really get out of the marriage business, IMO.

[Ibanez]

To answer both BDK and FCS:

The people can not pass laws that violate the Constitution. That is why we have a Supreme Court, laws, etc.


So you would be fine if a state passed a law that banned guns completely?
Or a law that made it illegal to practice religion?
Or if Utah required all residents to pay a tithing to the Mormon Church, whether they belonged or not?
It is the same principal, and really not that difficult to understand.

You are comparing 2 things that are expressly mentioned in the Constitution, in the 1st and 2nd Amendments, no less, with something that isn't.

Gun rights are enshrined in the 2nd amendment.

Religious freedoms are enshrined in the Constitution. 1st Amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......."

Gay marriage isn't addressed in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".

Pretty cut and dry. It isn't the same principle, which isn't difficult to understand.

Marriage is not addressed in the Constitution.

[houndawg]

Sex is about much, much more than reproduction.

Do you think all sex not for the purposes of reproduction is unnatural?

Well then...I was extremely unnatural this morning...

damn near artificial...

[Skjellyfetti]

Gay marriage isn't addressed in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".

Pretty cut and dry. It isn't the same principle, which isn't difficult to understand.

Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

The homophobic response is that gays have the same rights under the law as straight people -- they're free to marry people of the opposite sex if they wish. But, that argument is not going to continue to hold water for much longer... People in favor of anti-miscegenation laws made the same argument: people that want to marry someone of a different race aren't being discriminated against -- they can still marry someone of the same race if they choose!

[BDKJMU]

You are comparing 2 things that are expressly mentioned in the Constitution, in the 1st and 2nd Amendments, no less, with something that isn't.

Gun rights are enshrined in the 2nd amendment.

Religious freedoms are enshrined in the Constitution. 1st Amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......."

Gay marriage isn't addressed in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".

Pretty cut and dry. It isn't the same principle, which isn't difficult to understand.

Marriage is not addressed in the Constitution.

Thank you for making my point. Marriage isn't addressed in the Constitution. Again, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As I said before, leave it up to the states....

[Skjellyfetti]

Thank you for making my point. Marriage isn't addressed in the Constitution. Again, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As I said before, leave it up to the states....

But, that doesn't mean states can do whatever the hell they want. They still have to apply the laws according to the Constitution.

"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."

[BDKJMU]

Gay marriage isn't addressed in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".

Pretty cut and dry. It isn't the same principle, which isn't difficult to understand.

Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

The homophobic response is that gays have the same rights under the law as straight people -- they're free to marry people of the opposite sex if they wish. But, that argument is not going to continue to hold water for much longer... People in favor of anti-miscegenation laws made the same argument: people that want to marry someone of a different race aren't being discriminated against -- they can still marry someone of the same race if they choose!

The Equal Protection Clause was passed in the aftermath of the War Between the States specifically to deal with race.

No, the rational response is that any man is free to marry any woman, and any woman is free to marry any man.

Sexual orientation to race is Apples to Oranges.

Again, let the states decide..

[Skjellyfetti]

They didn't write that the 14th amendment applied strictly to racial discrimination.

Sounds like you have a very loose interpretation of this amendment for a strict constructionist.

Surely you don't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you read literally... and which you allow for interpretation?

[dbackjon]

To answer both BDK and FCS:

The people can not pass laws that violate the Constitution. That is why we have a Supreme Court, laws, etc.


So you would be fine if a state passed a law that banned guns completely?
Or a law that made it illegal to practice religion?
Or if Utah required all residents to pay a tithing to the Mormon Church, whether they belonged or not?
It is the same principal, and really not that difficult to understand.

You are comparing 2 things that are expressly mentioned in the Constitution, in the 1st and 2nd Amendments, no less, with something that isn't.

Gun rights are enshrined in the 2nd amendment.

Religious freedoms are enshrined in the Constitution. 1st Amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......."

Gay marriage isn't addressed in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".

Pretty cut and dry. It isn't the same principle, which isn't difficult to understand.

It is very easy to understand - and clearly you don't.


You should be up in arms over the activist judge in CA overriding the will of the people when it comes to guns.

You want a gun - join and train in a militia - see, it works both ways.

While marriage is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, Equal Protection is. I know this whole equality thing makes bigots like you uncomfortable, but don't worry, no one wants to gay marry you. Unless you want it, of course.

And yes, it is the same principle

[dbackjon]

Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

The homophobic response is that gays have the same rights under the law as straight people -- they're free to marry people of the opposite sex if they wish. But, that argument is not going to continue to hold water for much longer... People in favor of anti-miscegenation laws made the same argument: people that want to marry someone of a different race aren't being discriminated against -- they can still marry someone of the same race if they choose!

The Equal Protection Clause was passed in the aftermath of the War Between the States specifically to deal with race.

No, the rational response is that any man is free to marry any woman, and any woman is free to marry any man.

Sexual orientation to race is Apples to Oranges.

Again, let the states decide..

States have proven incapable of protecting civil rights. FAIL.

Race and orientation and gender are all equivalent - immutable characteristics.

And can I get freedom from your bigoted hatefilled joke of a religion, please.

all opposition to gay marriage is religious based, therefore NULL AND VOID.

You want religious law - move to Iran

[kalm]

The Equal Protection Clause was passed in the aftermath of the War Between the States specifically to deal with race.

No, the rational response is that any man is free to marry any woman, and any woman is free to marry any man.

Sexual orientation to race is Apples to Oranges.

Again, let the states decide..

States have proven incapable of protecting civil rights. FAIL.

Race and orientation and gender are all equivalent - immutable characteristics.

And can I get freedom from your bigoted hatefilled joke of a religion, please.

all opposition to gay marriage is religious based, therefore NULL AND VOID.

You want religious law - move to Iran

It's far easier to hide behind an interpretation of the constitution rather than man up (ha...see what I did there?) and state that you want to deny rights because you differ with someone's lifestyle. Have some stones BDK and just admit you're driven by fear and hatred.

[BDKJMU]

The Equal Protection Clause was passed in the aftermath of the War Between the States specifically to deal with race.

No, the rational response is that any man is free to marry any woman, and any woman is free to marry any man.

Sexual orientation to race is Apples to Oranges.

Again, let the states decide..

States have proven incapable of protecting civil rights. FAIL.

Race and orientation and gender are all equivalent - immutable characteristics.

And can I get freedom from your bigoted hatefilled joke of a religion, please.

all opposition to gay marriage is religious based, therefore NULL AND VOID.

You want religious law - move to Iran

And the rest of your post is pure melodramatic histrionics...

[CID1990]

Then why don't people have a problem with a law that says you can't marry your sister?

Because incestuous relationships (particularly brother - sister incest) cause all sorts of birth defects and genetic bottlenecking.

It's not the same thing.

That's true. The worst thing you can get from pillow biting is a blown out O-ring

[BDKJMU]

States have proven incapable of protecting civil rights. FAIL.

Race and orientation and gender are all equivalent - immutable characteristics.

And can I get freedom from your bigoted hatefilled joke of a religion, please.

all opposition to gay marriage is religious based, therefore NULL AND VOID.

You want religious law - move to Iran

It's far easier to hide behind an interpretation of the constitution rather than man up (ha...see what I did there?) and state that you want to deny rights because you differ with someone's lifestyle. Have some stones BDK and just admit you're driven by fear and hatred.

Typical lib intolerance to opposing views...

[kalm]

It's far easier to hide behind an interpretation of the constitution rather than man up (ha...see what I did there?) and state that you want to deny rights because you differ with someone's lifestyle. Have some stones BDK and just admit you're driven by fear and hatred.

Typical lib intolerance to opposing views...

My opinion isn't trying to deny someone's liberty and freedom. Isn't that what you conks are suppose to be good at defending? Come on, quit hiding behind your interpretation of the constitution...

[Skjellyfetti]

That's true. The worst thing you can get from pillow biting is a blown out O-ring

Thanks for sharing. Always nice to get personal perspectives.

[houndawg]

Because incestuous relationships (particularly brother - sister incest) cause all sorts of birth defects and genetic bottlenecking.

It's not the same thing.

That's true. The worst thing you can get from pillow biting is a blown out O-ring

Maybe you're biting too hard?

[CID1990]

That's true. The worst thing you can get from pillow biting is a blown out O-ring

Maybe you're biting too hard?

Don't try to follow my comedy with your own, HD.

I'm like Michaelangelo and you're a buck toothed 4 year old with a fvcking crayon. It just isn't fair

[JoltinJoe]

I would be fine with it as long as they didn't have sex and reproduce and if it was completely consensual.

Ewwww...