Bluegrassrivals

Beetle01 Wrote:It is not a right that the govt recognizes marriages

They give tax breaks to married people, as long as it is heterosexual.

TheRealVille Wrote:If government doesn't have the right to define marriages, how can they define that married people get tax breaks? Are they leaving out a class of people that by your words have decided that they aren't showing good behavior? They state of New York defined marriage, and gay marriage was legal, But DOMA didn't recognize it. Therefore, if gays married in states that made it legal, it was still illegal as far as tax breaks were concerned. Who is defining "good behavior"?

Most governments have recognized marriage to be a "good" thing for thousands of years. Studies have shown that children who are the product of the marriage between a man and a woman thrive in our society, in contrast to those who are born to unmarried couples and raised in single parent households. That, and providing an orderly system of inheritance of property from parents to their offspring are probably the two most compelling arguments for governments to encourage men and women to marry before having children.

You obviously disagree that the government's support of traditional marriage over other relationships is a "good" thing, but the facts are the facts.

If you give the matter just a little bit of thought, then you will realize that the government grants tax incentives to people and corporations (which are little different than people in the eyes of the law) for behaving in a manner that is believed to be beneficial to society. If the practice was unconstitutional, then the courts would not allow deductions for engaging in any behavior, including buying energy efficient automobiles, investing in gas wells, donating to charities that are deemed worthy, or purchasing a home.

The Supreme Court may ignore historical precedent and issue a ruling or two that will make you a happy man but if it does, it will not be the first mistake that the Court has made.

Quote:

Hoot Gibson Wrote:That's right. Gay marriage has never been a constitutional right, which is why Scalia asked the lawyer for the plaintiffs to pinpoint the time that gay marriage became a constitutional right. The only way that gay marriage will be ruled a constitutional right is that five Supreme Court justices decide that the U.S. Constitution should be subject to the whims of public opinion. That would be a very dangerous precedent to set.

If gay rights advocates want people to recognize gay marriage as a right, then they need to do the heavy lifting that it takes to get a constitutional amendment passed. Supreme Court rulings not based on the written words of the Constitution just do not command the same respect as those that do.

Quote:Equal Protection Clause
Main article: Equal Protection Clause


U.S. circuit judges Robert Katzmann, Damon Keith, and Sonia Sotomayor at a 2004 exhibit on the Fourteenth Amendment, Thurgood Marshall, and Brown v. Board of Education.
The equal protection clause was added to deal with the lack of equal protection provided by law to all in the course of administering justice in the states who had Black codes. Under black codes blacks could not sue, give evidence, be witnesses, received harsher degree of punishment, etc. The principal author of the Equal Protection Clause, John Bingham stated that phrase “equal protection” under the Fourteenth Amendment means that “It confers upon Congress power to see to it that the protection given by the laws of the States shall be equal in respect to life and liberty and property to all persons.”[28] The inclusion of the words equal protection along with the words life, liberty and property provided protection for all persons from arbitrary taking of life, imprisonment or confiscation of property.[28] Bingham said in a speech from March 31, 1871 that "the words “equal protection of the laws” were more than a glittering generality", but "that they were to be enforced to the extent of securing all guarantees of life, liberty, and property as provided by the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States."[28] Thus it was Congress power to enforce laws guaranteed to all for the protection of life, liberty and property from arbitrary government action.[28] The equal protection of the laws disable legislatures and judges from unequally administering those rights of justice the State guarantees to all men (everyone has a right to process of law before being put to death, property confiscated or imprisoned).[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_...nstitution

^An exhibit? Really? The Fourteenth Amendment had and has nothing to do with gay marriage and quoting people out of context will not sway any reasonable person to believe that it does. How do you reconcile your convenient interpretation of the 14th Amendment in the case of gay marriage with your support of a progressive federal income tax rate? If your argument is valid, then what about people who are deprived of a disproportionate portion of their property because of their place of residence and income level?

If the 14th Amendment was intended to allow gay couples to marry so that they can take advantage of, among other things, more equitable treatment by the IRS, then why do nearly half of U.S. citizens pay no federal income taxes? Are citizens who have more than 50 percent of their income confiscated by federal, state, and local jurisdictions receiving equal protection under the law?

The same logic applies in both examples above. You are focusing on the word "liberty" but barring the arbitrary confiscation of "property" is an important part of the 14th Amendment. Should all U.S. citizens be subject to the same flat tax rates, or is your misinterpretation of the law one of convenience?

[INDENT]

Quote:Equal Protection Clause
Main article: Equal Protection Clause

U.S. circuit judges Robert Katzmann, Damon Keith, and Sonia Sotomayor at a 2004 exhibit on the Fourteenth Amendment, Thurgood Marshall, and Brown v. Board of Education.

The equal protection clause was added to deal with the lack of equal protection provided by law to all in the course of administering justice in the states who had Black codes. Under black codes blacks could not sue, give evidence, be witnesses, received harsher degree of punishment, etc. The principal author of the Equal Protection Clause, John Bingham stated that phrase “equal protection” under the Fourteenth Amendment means that “It confers upon Congress power to see to it that the protection given by the laws of the States shall be equal in respect to life and liberty and property to all persons.”[28] The inclusion of the words equal protection along with the words life, liberty and property provided protection for all persons from arbitrary taking of life, imprisonment or confiscation of property.[28] Bingham said in a speech from March 31, 1871 that "the words “equal protection of the laws” were more than a glittering generality", but "that they were to be enforced to the extent of securing all guarantees of life, liberty, and property as provided by the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States."[28] Thus it was Congress power to enforce laws guaranteed to all for the protection of life, liberty and property from arbitrary government action.[28] The equal protection of the laws disable legislatures and judges from unequally administering those rights of justice the State guarantees to all men (everyone has a right to process of law before being put to death, property confiscated or imprisoned).[23]

[/INDENT]

Hoot Gibson Wrote:^An exhibit? Really? The Fourteenth Amendment had and has nothing to do with gay marriage and quoting people out of context will not sway any reasonable person to believe that it does. How do you reconcile your convenient interpretation of the 14th Amendment in the case of gay marriage with your support of a progressive federal income tax rate? If your argument is valid, then what about people who are deprived of a disproportionate portion of their property because of their place of residence and income level?

If the 14th Amendment was intended to allow gay couples to marry so that they can take advantage of, among other things, more equitable treatment by the IRS, then why do nearly half of U.S. citizens pay no federal income taxes? Are citizens who have more than 50 percent of their income confiscated by federal, state, and local jurisdictions receiving equal protection under the law?

The same logic applies in both examples above. You are focusing on the word "liberty" but barring the arbitrary confiscation of "property" is an important part of the 14th Amendment. Should all U.S. citizens be subject to the same flat tax rates, or is your misinterpretation of the law one of convenience?

[INDENT][/INDENT]

An excellent argument and obviously one that didn't require your having to stretch the law at any point to make.

Gays are not being defrauded by government, or God. They have chosen a life style that requires men to "abandon the natural use of the woman trying to do something that is inconvenient" and requires women to do the same thing. Society doesn't need the government to tell them murder is wrong, we being of sound mind and body tell the government it is wrong. Of, by and for the people.

So, what's all this about? From a secular standpoint it is about the homosexual's quest for social vindication. They are desperate to have their lifestyle and therefore their person validated. It's something they all want. As I have pointed out, in order for them to get what they want, straight folks, (And it is at this juncture where the confluence of man's will rebelliously roils in contradiction to God's will, and, like it or not, man's argument must here drop the sham of it's secular disguise and face off against his Maker to directly challenge God's authority) must therefore in acts of blatant disobedience, through the US court system, go against God in order to declare His law regarding the matter, null and void.

From a spiritual standpoint it is about Satan's efforts to overthrow men, and in so doing, force as many as even one of God's prophesies or statements to be errant. If he could do that, Satan could conceivably avoid eternity in the lake of fire. That is why the argument that people try to make which alleges certain parts of the Bible are allegorical and vague, is an extremely bad idea. God is perfect, He has declared His Word to be perfect and as I mentioned, Satan has mounted his attack against God's people and His Word for that reason. So important is marriage to the existence of man. God set up the institution of marriage between Adam and Eve, and it was done as soon as God made Eve and brought her to show to Adam in the Garden of Eden. It would be relatively easy to write a book outlining scenarios and reasons why man and civilization in general, would come under serious jeopardy without purity in the institution of marriage. Do some people commit adultery? Unfortunately yes but, many times they forgive each other, thusly preserving their families and ultimately society. As stated, God's law is meant to protect man, not destroy him. And yet, if we willingly and purposefully defy His law, like the saying goes, we will get the horn.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:^An exhibit? Really? The Fourteenth Amendment had and has nothing to do with gay marriage and quoting people out of context will not sway any reasonable person to believe that it does. How do you reconcile your convenient interpretation of the 14th Amendment in the case of gay marriage with your support of a progressive federal income tax rate? If your argument is valid, then what about people who are deprived of a disproportionate portion of their property because of their place of residence and income level?

If the 14th Amendment was intended to allow gay couples to marry so that they can take advantage of, among other things, more equitable treatment by the IRS, then why do nearly half of U.S. citizens pay no federal income taxes? Are citizens who have more than 50 percent of their income confiscated by federal, state, and local jurisdictions receiving equal protection under the law?

The same logic applies in both examples above. You are focusing on the word "liberty" but barring the arbitrary confiscation of "property" is an important part of the 14th Amendment. Should all U.S. citizens be subject to the same flat tax rates, or is your misinterpretation of the law one of convenience?

[INDENT][/INDENT]

I take it you are more educated on the constitution than the SCOTUS, and other Constitutional lawyers?

TheRealVille Wrote:I take it you are more educated on the constitution than the SCOTUS, and other Constitutional lawyers?

Certainly not, but I am apparently more educated than you are, or at least better informed. There are many left wing jurists that agree with you on gay marriage. So what? What you cited was not even taken from a federal court decision. Judges speaking in public at seminars and other events do not speak for the Supreme Court, nor do they speak for the courts on which they may sit.

TheRealVille Wrote:They give tax breaks to married people, as long as it is heterosexual.

Correct, they do, that doesn't mean it is a right, guaranteed by the Constitution.

Like I stated above, the govt offers different benefits in many areas, including taxes, to individuals based on certain prerequisites. The prerequisite for a marriage tax reduction is being a man and a woman.

It is just the same as the govt offering tax breaks to those who make less than me, and taxing those who make more than me at a higher rate. (Although, I favor a flat tax rate of 12-15%, maybe 20 until we hammer away at our debt)

If marriage tax breaks were a right, then the govt couldn't do away with them tomorrow if they so decided, yet they can.

You can not name we one "right" that is being denied to gays.

Wildcatk23 Wrote:They want the same rights as everyone else. To be legally married under government.

And again, government can't grant what God has denied them.

TheRealThing Wrote:And again, government can't grant what God has denied them.

God can't define America's laws. If we change the law to include gays, he will just have to deal with it.

TheRealVille Wrote:God can't define America's laws. If we change the law to include gays, he will just have to deal with it.

And then, we will all have to deal with Him.

Beetle01 Wrote:It is not a right that the govt recognizes marriages

So straight people doesn't have the right to get legally married?

TheRealThing Wrote:And again, government can't grant what God has denied them.

The government is not a Christian dictatorship. Those that do not believe is god do not care of what he has denied them.

Its very simple. Let them have there civil unions.
No marriage. Its completely off the table.


Gays have become worse than any other groups when it comes to wanting more, more, and more.

RunItUpTheGut Wrote:Its very simple. Let them have there civil unions.
No marriage. Its completely off the table.


Gays have become worse than any other groups when it comes to wanting more, more, and more.

What have they demanded other than the same rights we have?

Wildcatk23 Wrote:The government is not a Christian dictatorship. Those that do not believe is god do not care of what he has denied them.

So, you're just not going to admit that marriage is an institution set up by God Himself? First mentioned by Moses, who by all accounts put together the first five books of the Bible sometime very near to 1405 BC.

God denies people who live in rebellion to Him, a great many things. Lucifer felt strongly that God wasn't giving him his just due and led a rebellion against God. Cain slew his brother Able because he insisted on making a sacrifice to Him with crops, rather than a blood sacrifice, which God had made clear was all He would accept. God Himself illustrated what a blood sacrifice was when He slew the animals whose skins were used to clothe Adam and Eve. You remember, the yearly sacrifice as demanded by God called "The Feast of the Passover"? The blood of bulls and goats that were offered up each year to temporarily hide men's sin each year until the perfect sacrifice of His Son on the cross took care of the problem once for all. King Saul disobeyed God and was unseated by King David, who disobeyed God committing adultery with Bathsheba, all resulting in God withdrawing His hand of blessing from them. And then there is the nation Israel as a whole. Every time Israel turned her back on God she suffered. Her ultimate betrayal being the rejection of Jesus the Son of God and agreeing to accept the weight of their sin by having His blood on their heads and on the heads of their children. Now, America which in part represents the "grafted branch", has turned her back on God and His Judgments are beginning to fall.

Having said that, just to point out man's nature has always been one that tends to rebel against his Creator. Homosexuals seek to be validated in their rebellion. I'm just pointing out the obvious. It wouldn't matter how many laws American courts pass in support of the practice of homosexuality, whether it be under the repackaged and redefined institution of marriage, or some other attempt to clean up their image. The idea that they insist on borrowing from what is right in God's eyes, by coming up with what they believe to be so compelling an argument about gay marriage, is undeniable testimony that regardless of all the smoke and mirrors, down in their hearts, all men inherently know and understand what is right. If gays weren't trying to equate their actions to acceptable moral behavior they wouldn't be using God's value system to justify their own.

Wildcatk23 Wrote:What have they demanded other than the same rights we have?

What right do I have that a homosexual does not?

SKINNYPIG Wrote:What right do I have that a homosexual does not?

You can legally be married can you not?

SKINNYPIG Wrote:What right do I have that a homosexual does not?

You may be wondering why the long pause in answering your question, or you may not have expected one because there is no answer. Other than none.

We see where the right's attempts to appease the left, allowing the baby steps of liberal encroachment has brought us. We blinked and now it's an all out assault of traditional America. Instead of being buoyed or grateful for what the liberal has deemed progress, we see only boiling contempt for conservatives. Liberals will never be satisfied until America is altogether undone, her face having been "fundamentally transformed" to become more alien every day, more closely resembling Sodom than the vision of Katharine Bates America;
O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears! America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

Who would have ever dreamed that "seeing beyond the years" to the turn of the 21st century, America would be prioritizing abortion rights, gay rights, something called environmentalism which, can only be explained by earth worship, and gun control? The once clear line between right and wrong is now a vast gray area of debate where subjectivism and relativism are mixed into a chaotic and endless argument. Under this president America can't even decide if we are to defend ourselves anymore, as on the only issue where he is willing to lead from the front we are talking about total elimination of our nuclear arms stockpile. The tears are coming.

Wildcatk23 Wrote:So straight people doesn't have the right to get legally married?

They don't have the right to have that marriage recognized from a govt POV.

The govt can't infringe on the rights of an individual to go through their religious ceremony of marriage, and be recognized as married by that church. (or if the people are atheists, having a non religious ceremony)

Liberals love to toss around the term "rights", even if no right exists for the discussion they are having.

Like I stated above, heterosexual couples, especially those who practice a religion would still get married if the govt stopped recognizing marriages tomorrow.

Now if the people of a certain state and their govt want to grant marital status to anyone who wants to marry anybody, and allow those people to add their significant other to their insurance policies, and give those people state tax breaks, that is up to that state to decide, and let the decreased revenue from taxes and increased premiums fall on the people of that state.

Now, if Democrats and any other supporters of "gay marriage" want to come out and say that they support giving gay couples the same tax breaks as heterosexual couples, that's what they should say, instead of pretending like some right is being denied to people.

Wildcatk23 Wrote:You can legally be married can you not?

Yes Sir I can. As a heterosexual male, the only person I can legally marry must be female. Same goes for a homosexual male.

You're going to mention love next I bet. Does being "in love" give you the right to marry? What if you're not in love, does this mean you don't have the right to marry?

SKINNYPIG Wrote:Yes Sir I can. As a heterosexual male, the only person I can legally marry must be female. Same goes for a homosexual male.

You're going to mention love next I bet. Does being "in love" give you the right to marry? What if you're not in love, does this mean you don't have the right to marry?

No, You answered the questions.

The Homosexual Male or Female just want the right to legally be able to marry their same sex.

Wildcatk23 Wrote:No, You answered the questions.

The Homosexual Male or Female just want the right to legally be able to marry their same sex.

Are you seeing the word twisting that is the norm here by a few?

TheRealVille Wrote:Are you seeing the word twisting that is the norm here by a few?

A few? Many have posted in the last months about this subject. Name one poster that supports your position other than vector and 23. And, vector is a sock puppet.

TheRealThing Wrote:A few? Many have posted in the last months about this subject. Name one poster that supports your position other than vector and 23. And, vector is a sock puppet.

Look at how Skinny twisted his response up.

SKINNYPIG Wrote:Yes Sir I can. As a heterosexual male, the only person I can legally marry must be female. Same goes for a homosexual male.

You're going to mention love next I bet. Does being "in love" give you the right to marry? What if you're not in love, does this mean you don't have the right to marry?

Beetle01 Wrote:They don't have the right to have that marriage recognized from a govt POV.

The govt can't infringe on the rights of an individual to go through their religious ceremony of marriage, and be recognized as married by that church. (or if the people are atheists, having a non religious ceremony)

Liberals love to toss around the term "rights", even if no right exists for the discussion they are having.

Like I stated above, heterosexual couples, especially those who practice a religion would still get married if the govt stopped recognizing marriages tomorrow.

Now if the people of a certain state and their govt want to grant marital status to anyone who wants to marry anybody, and allow those people to add their significant other to their insurance policies, and give those people state tax breaks, that is up to that state to decide, and let the decreased revenue from taxes and increased premiums fall on the people of that state.

Now, if Democrats and any other supporters of "gay marriage" want to come out and say that they support giving gay couples the same tax breaks as heterosexual couples, that's what they should say, instead of pretending like some right is being denied to people.

It is being denied. You just stated what was being denied.

TheRealVille Wrote:Look at how Skinny twisted his response up.

Well, it's laughable that liberals to try to say conservatives are in any way trying to word twist with regard to this issue.

Consider the following undisputed truths;

(1) - Marriage was instituted by God in the Garden in the year (at least) 4000 BC

(2) - Whether one accepts a belief in creation or a belief in evolution one thing is true. Moses first wrote of marriage no less recently than 1405 BC. That means at bare minimum, mankind has defined marriage as between one man and one woman for lo these past 3,418 years. That's 86 generations of Nolo contendere, on the gay marriage front.

(3) - Along comes the modern liberal movement in the USA of the past several decades. It is from that group that the true word twisting has emerged, in an attempt to REDEFINE the idea of marriage to include the list or weird combinations of sexually, inappropriate and immoral partners. Laughably, the 'dressed up' or dignified version of which, is men with men and women with women. (everybody including the likes of Justice Sonia Sotomayer, has said to do this would open the floodgates to include every unlikely combination imaginable asking, "what's left?")

Now, it's you Johnny come latelies that want change, right? That being the case, it is you who must make the argument to change everything. We conservatives have only to call attention to all of history up until the days of Bill Clinton to make our case. And though you are a brand new liberal convert, you guys are the ones who only just started to try to make the case for gay marriage. But, like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, who accused the republicans of blocking legislation when in fact it has been Liberal Democrat Reid who blocked the budget for over four years as Leader of the Senate. And because you couldn't convert the conservatives of this land with the double speak Du-Jour, it was back to the slams and distortions to try to get your way. To hear the liberal speak is to hear a declaration of victory by the islandhopping strategy I have spoken of. No man who thinks for himself, will ever accept the doctrines of the liberal.

Wildcatk23 Wrote:What have they demanded other than the same rights we have?

Gotta poop outta that hole!

Wildcatk23 Wrote:It is being denied. You just stated what was being denied.

No right is being denied, what I stated was that heterosexual couples don't have the right to have their marriage recognized by the govt (e.g. tax breaks) just because the govt does it for one group of people based on prerequisites does not mean others are eligible for that same benefit.

The govt offers all kinds of different benefits to different people based on certain prerequisites.

Interesting on how you only focus on one sentence in that entire post.

TheRealVille Wrote:Look at how Skinny twisted his response up.

Twisted? Seriously?

I am a straight male and I cannot legally marry a male in this state. A gay male also cannot legally marry another male in this state.

I am a straight male and can legally marry a female in this state. A gay male can legally marry a female in this state.

Please explain where I (as a straight male) have a "right" that a gay male does not.

I really don't intend to twist my point.