You are a wedding chapel owner? Frankly, I doubt your wedding chapel story but we'll leave that alone.
How does gay marriage affect you? Again, I get nebulous crap about "I can form public policy if I want to".
Have you ever answered a question straight?
Why Do You Oppose Gay Marriage? You personally, Your reason, Your fact based reason.
I answered your question straight. That fact that you don't like it makes no difference, one way or the other.
No, I don’t own a wedding chapel (never claimed I did). But, the mere fact that something like that can happen to someone in this country is of a great concern to me. And, I’d rather not wait until it happens to me to put a halt to it.
Recap: I oppose it, because such affects public policy in my state (the fact that I could be fined or potentially jailed, for believing such is wrong doesn't sit well with me or a lot of other citizens).
On a personal note, my reasons for believing that gay “marriage” is wrong is based on my religious upbringing and background (which is hardly a secret, to anyone here).
As for my answer being "nebulous crap", that's quite ridiculous, especially considering YOU just mentioned that you've voted on policy that doesn’t affect you directly.
That's absolutely correct. The same sort of justification was given for slavery, abortion, segregation and women's rights.
Your reasoning keeps consistent company.
So, what are you blubbering about? When people thought those things were wrong, they passed laws and amendments to deal with the situation.
People think that gay "marriage" is wrong; therefore, they are passing laws and amendments to make sure that the definition of marriage remains that of a union between a man and a woman.
They're just as misguided as you and your ilk are on the matter.
Oh, so our former President, current President, VP, Sec. of State etc. are all "misguided", because they don't subscribe to your gay "marriage" sympathy. Be sure to inform them and their supporters of that.
Why?
How does it affect you?
I mean outside of the Wedding chapel scandal...which you don't own...and which probably didn't happen.
And why didn't this supposedly happen, because you said so? I see!!!
Ask the owners of Elane Photography, Jon and Elaine Huguenin. They were fined $6,600 by the New Mexico Human Rights Association for refusing to take photos for a lesbian's couple "committment ceremony", espeically ridiculous considering that gay "marriage" isn't even legal in New Mexico.
Furthermore, I've already mentioned several time how it affects me.
And, since you just posted not that long ago, that you've voted on issues that don't affect you directly, you sound awfully silly, criticizing me for doing the same.
How does it affect you?
Does gay marriage undermine something?
I mentioned that earlier. The Alzheimers’ stuff must be acting up.
14th amendment? I've heard of that somewhere... Something about equal protection or due process...I must have missed that day of law school.
The marriage laws DO NOT CLASH with that 14th amendment. "Baker v. Nelson" mentioned that some 36 years ago, when gay activists tried using that argument to squash Minnesota's marriage laws. When they lost, they appealed to the US Supreme Court, who dismissed their appeal ON ITS MERITS.
And, since you missed that day in law school, let me refresh your memory. When the US Supreme Court dismissed an appeal of a state court ruling on its merits, that's the US Court's effectively agreeing with the lower court. And such is binding on other lower courts.
The District Court dismissed this action on the basis that Baker v. Nelson, supra, was dispositive of the issues raised therein. We agree. The Minnesota Supreme Court explicitly held that marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited and that the applicable Minnesota statute did not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Baker v. Nelson, supra, 191 N.W.2d at 186, 187. The appellants were plaintiffs in that state action which settled the issues adversely to their present claim.
In addition, the Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal for want of a substantial federal question constitutes an adjudication of the merits which is binding on the lower federal courts. See Hicks v. Miranda,422 U.S. 332, 343-345, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 45 L.Ed.2d 223 (1975). The appellants have had their day in court on the issue of their right to marry under Minnesota law and under the United States Constitution. They, therefore, are collaterally estopped from relitigating these issues once more. See Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Ill. Fdn., 402 U.S. 313, 91 S.Ct. 1434, 28 L.Ed.2d 788 (1971); Gerrard v. Larsen, 517 F.2d 1127 (8th Cir. 1975).http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/547/547.F2d.54.76-1606.htmlSo, with no federal constitutional breach, people can define marriage as they see fit. And the majority of this country says: One man and one woman.
The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment./4/
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967), upon which petitioners additionally rely, does not militate against this conclusion. Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, prohibiting interracial marriages, was invalidated solely on the grounds of its patent racial discrimination. As Mr. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the court (388 U.S. 12, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1018):
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed. 654 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations."
Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.
We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Affirmed.http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htmWhy do you want to crush the happiness of gay people? What do you stand to gain? What are you protecting?
I have no interest in crushing anything of gay people (nor is my cause in life to make them happy).
As far as protecting stuff goes, the institution of marriage is rough shape as it is. The last thing it needs is FURTHER deterioration by gay activists.
Besides, weren't you just barking about divorce rates not that long ago? If marriage is so bad, why are you bleating about gays not being able to re-define it?
It's a fucking beauty contest owned by Donald Trump.
It's not an olympic event.
Trump is a private Employer who can hire any judge he wants.
Why are you suddenly getting your panties in a bunch over the sacred duty of beauty contest judges to be even-handed with their judgments?
Ummm....genius, the issue isn't whether or not a gay judge can be part of the panel. It's the fact that the gay judge should call it down the middle AS THE REST OF THE JUDGES ARE EXPECTED TO DO.
On the one hand, the beauty contest is bullshit. On the other hand, gay marriage is not. You're confusing what's important here I think...a little bit.
Acutally, you hold that position. If homos and gay-"marriage" sympathizers can't be "tolerant" (the thing about which they whine and wail to no end), in regards to something as meager as a beauty contest, what makes you think they can do the same when the stakes are much higher?
You shore got a purty mouth. But all that nonsense flowing out takes off some of the shine.
You're one to talk. You've stated that you vote on issues that don't affect you directly; yet you howl when others do the same.
I like marriage. It works for me and my wife. I'm very happy. I'd hate to think that I hold a belief that denies that happiness to someone else just b/c they are different with their choice of partner.
Cookie for you. Last time I checked, my purpose in life wasn't to walk on eggshells, fearing that my beliefs might deny someone happiness. Then again, I believe that people shouldn't steal; that won't make thieves very happy.
Apparently you have no problem relegating other people to second class status, but I do.
I'm not relegating anyone to second-class status. In my home state, I can't "marry" someone of the same sex; the fact I have absolutely no desire to do so hold no bearing on the matter. The same definition of marriage applies to everyone in the Sunshine State.
You still haven't given me your concrete reason why you want to treat gays this way.
You tap dance with talk of democracy and fucking wedding chapels...but you got no answer.
I've given my answers, point blank. Whether you think they're concrete or not is hardly a concern of mine.
