Judge declares SSM ban in VA illegal

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Why not just add to the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples, and not make it a constitutional right?

That's kind of happening state-by-state now.  DOMA was overturned, too, so there is no universal 'definition' of marriage.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, and some states (Illinois, Maryland, Washington) et al were kind enough to allow the people, either through a public vote, or a legislative body to add to the definition of marriage.

They didn't create a "Fundamental right" to marry whomever you want, they added to their definition. It may not be something I'm on board with, but it's the way the republic works, and I'm not going to kvetch about it.

When a liberal judge with an agenda creates a right in the constitution that never existed, however, that's when I do object.

[old timey villain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, and some states (Illinois, Maryland, Washington) et al were kind enough to allow the people, either through a public vote, or a legislative body to add to the definition of marriage.

They didn't create a "Fundamental right" to marry whomever you want, they added to their definition. It may not be something I'm on board with, but it's the way the republic works, and I'm not going to kvetch about it.

When a liberal judge with an agenda creates a right in the constitution that never existed, however, that's when I do object.

Dude, didn't you admit you were gay on a thread a while back? Go home troll

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't aware that all people who are homosexual were required to think the same, act the same, and want to get married.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, and some states (Illinois, Maryland, Washington) et al were kind enough to allow the people, either through a public vote, or a legislative body to add to the definition of marriage.

They didn't create a "Fundamental right" to marry whomever you want, they added to their definition. It may not be something I'm on board with, but it's the way the republic works, and I'm not going to kvetch about it.

When a liberal judge with an agenda creates a right in the constitution that never existed, however, that's when I do object.

The Constitution has historically been interpreted to cover an array of issues, even those that are not specifically addressed.  This ranges from abortion to assault rifles to health care.  You don't have to agree with these rulings, but you seem to be implying that the actions of these judges is unconstitutional.  According to precedent and the way our legal system is structured, it's not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't aware that all people who are homosexual were required to think the same, act the same, and want to get married.

They're not.  But the fact that you claim to be gay while opposing your equal right to marriage doesn't boost your credibility one bit.

[seanNJ9]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And gay marriage will lead to this slippery slope, particularly when a court just decides that a certain group should be afforded a new right that was never intended by our founders......

Why not just add to the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples, and not make it a constitutional right?

"Not intended by our founders"

1. How the heck do you know what they intended?

2. They aren't infallible, there are countless things they could never foreseen.  The constitution is a living document that can, has, and will be amended.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because if it was 100% crucial to allow anyone to marry anyone else they want, believe me, it would have been in there and specifically stated.

What have we done historically when our society evolved? We changed the constitution to create the new rights we wanted to create.

But the left has "found" rights in the constitution that our founding fathers, I'm pretty sure, would be horrified by, particularly Roe v. Wade

[seanNJ9]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because if it was 100% crucial to allow anyone to marry anyone else they want, believe me, it would have been in there and specifically stated.

What have we done historically when our society evolved? We changed the constitution to create the new rights we wanted to create.

But the left has "found" rights in the constitution that our founding fathers, I'm pretty sure, would be horrified by, particularly Roe v. Wade

And I'm horrified they owned slaves, so we're even I guess.

Just about every meaningful social change the last 50 years has came via the courts. What's horrificly wrong is continuing to subject a minority to majority rule. How much longer do gays and lesbians in Oklahoma, Alabama, and Virginia have to wait for their neighbors acceptance or approval? Enough is enough.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your little elitist jab at the South not withstanding, you can't force anybody to accept or approve anyone else's behavior and lifestyle choices.

Once SSM is forced onto the country by Obama's court that the Republicans sat with their hands folded while they were rubberstamped to confirmation, won't that be enough?
Why do you crave acceptance from all your neighbors if you have what you deem to be equal rights?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And gay marriage will lead to this slippery slope, particularly when a court just decides that a certain group should be afforded a new right that was never intended by our founders......

Why not just add to the definition of marriage to include homosexual couples, and not make it a constitutional right?

"Not intended by our founders"

1. How the heck do you know what they intended?

2. They aren't infallible, there are countless things they could never foreseen.  The constitution is a living document that can, has, and will be amended.

But being a living document and being amended are two different things.  Being a "living document" means open to change without changing the language of the Constitution; being amended means changing its language.  The two are quite different, and the amendment process does not support the "living document" argument, but rather implicitly contradicts it.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep. And it's worked pretty darn well for us throughout history as our society has evolved.

It is my dream hopefully it will be the younger generation that will put an end to abortion via a Human Life Amendment, and beginning with ending Roe v Wade by getting some real conservatives on the court.

2016 election is the last chance for conservatism in our nation.

[TJ in Oregon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep. And it's worked pretty darn well for us throughout history as our society has evolved.

It is my dream hopefully it will be the younger generation that will put an end to abortion via a Human Life Amendment, and beginning with ending Roe v Wade by getting some real conservatives on the court.

2016 election is the last chance for conservatism in our nation.

I don't think there's any chance really, but good luck. I wish there were.

[seanNJ9]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your little elitist jab at the South not withstanding, you can't force anybody to accept or approve anyone else's behavior and lifestyle choices.

Once SSM is forced onto the country by Obama's court that the Republicans sat with their hands folded while they were rubberstamped to confirmation, won't that be enough?
Why do you crave acceptance from all your neighbors if you have what you deem to be equal rights?

Jab at the south? More like an example of the founders being less than perfect. I mean they owned people. They couldn't find African Americans rights when they wrote that thing, how do you expect them to find gay peoples?

We are well past looking for peoples acceptance for gays, the people who are still not there will get there when they get there, but under the eyes of the law... It's time. The train is leaving the station and you are being left behind.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep. And it's worked pretty darn well for us throughout history as our society has evolved.

It is my dream hopefully it will be the younger generation that will put an end to abortion via a Human Life Amendment, and beginning with ending Roe v Wade by getting some real conservatives on the court.

2016 election is the last chance for conservatism in our nation.

What constitutes conservatism changes a lot, though. Every election is the last chance for some kind of conservatism or other.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks. I have to be hopeful and positive though. We just have to pray. The #1 priority during 2014 midterm  is to pass voter ID laws as many places as possible and have a 2004-style turnout machine. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let me tell you, something, Sean. As a gay conservative I have gotten maybe 1000 times more respect from conservative Christian southern Baptists than I have from the communists in the most intolerant city on Earth-San Francisco, for even supporting RINO Republican candidates.

I don't crave acceptance from anybody. Not even myself. ok.

[Flake]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks. I have to be hopeful and positive though. We just have to pray. The #1 priority during 2014 midterm  is to pass voter ID laws as many places as possible and have a 2004-style turnout machine.

You sure you're not just a troll?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep. And it's worked pretty darn well for us throughout history as our society has evolved.

It is my dream hopefully it will be the younger generation that will put an end to abortion via a Human Life Amendment, and beginning with ending Roe v Wade by getting some real conservatives on the court.

2016 election is the last chance for conservatism in our nation.

You think the Constitution has worked pretty darn well?  The Constitution was so poorly written and organized that it took a President blatantly ignoring key provisions of it just to hold the country together.  It's so flawed that it has led to loose reading and sketchy extensions of its provisions to accomplish what the judiciary believes is morally right because the actual paper didn't accomplish it, not only altering future citizens' perspective on what the Constitution really stands for, but also pointing out the severe flaws in the entire document.

[seanNJ9]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks. I have to be hopeful and positive though. We just have to pray. The #1 priority during 2014 midterm  is to pass voter ID laws as many places as possible and have a 2004-style turnout machine. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let me tell you, something, Sean. As a gay conservative I have gotten maybe 1000 times more respect from conservative Christian southern Baptists than I have from the communists in the most intolerant city on Earth-San Francisco, for even supporting RINO Republican candidates.

I don't crave acceptance from anybody. Not even myself. ok.

Forgive me if I don't believe you.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just because maybe 75% of the forum users here are Democrat or anti-tea party Repub does not mean my views constitute trolling.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm proud of our Constitution. It guarantees us the right to free speech, to practice the faith we want, without persecution from our government.  I see nothing imperfect about it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do you think the average gay man I've dated react when they see my Michael Savage book collection and Rick Santorum/Reagan/Bush signs in my home?

[Sol]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do you think the average gay man I've dated react when they see my Michael Savage book collection and Rick Santorum/Reagan/Bush signs in my home?

They probably thought it was about this guy:


"Creative Commons 2012 March 22 Dan Savage 01" by Better than Bacon is licensed under CC BY 2.0

[CountryClassSF]

Well, there's the problem. Dan Savage is widely perceived in left wing circles as some kind of hero for the down trodden and bullied, but he's made some really hurtful, hateful statements about Christians.

He's also lambasted gay conservatives on more than one occasion. He encourages intolerance.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm proud of our Constitution. It guarantees us the right to free speech, to practice the faith we want, without persecution from our government.  I see nothing imperfect about it.

Proud of our Constitution as written or as amended?  As written, the Constitution allowed slavery and didn't afford women the right to vote.

If you argue that the Constitution is not imperfect, this is logically interpreted as meaning that it is perfect.  But then a perfect document would not have to be changed, for it is already perfect, and perfection cannot be improved.  Therefore, either the Constitution was imperfect upon its original creation and is now, in your eyes perfect, with its 25 changes (a somewhat odd and arbitrary point to place perfection), or it was perfect, and by the very nature of being substantively changed, can no longer be perfect.  So unless you are going to argue that the Constitution, as it is written today, is a perfect document, your statement makes no logical sense (and would preclude you from ever supporting an amendment in the future).

Then, of course, you have the whole issue of the Civil War.  The Constitution was designed in a way that the only remedy unhappy states felt they had was to leave the Union, a provision that the Constitution oddly enough never addressed, further complicating the issue.  And the Confederacy was brought back into the Union at the hands of a President who ignored and butchered key provisions of the Constitution in order to preserve the Union.  Whether he was morally right in doing so is irrelevant; the very fact that the South seceded and Lincoln took the actions that he did is clear evidence of the grave flaws in the Constitution.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm proud of our Constitution. It guarantees us the right to free speech, to practice the faith we want, without persecution from our government.  I see nothing imperfect about it.

Proud of our Constitution as written or as amended?  As written, the Constitution allowed slavery and didn't afford women the right to vote.

If you argue that the Constitution is not imperfect, this is logically interpreted as meaning that it is perfect.  But then a perfect document would not have to be changed, for it is already perfect, and perfection cannot be improved.  Therefore, either the Constitution was imperfect upon its original creation and is now, in your eyes perfect, with its 25 changes (a somewhat odd and arbitrary point to place perfection), or it was perfect, and by the very nature of being substantively changed, can no longer be perfect.  So unless you are going to argue that the Constitution, as it is written today, is a perfect document, your statement makes no logical sense (and would preclude you from ever supporting an amendment in the future).

Then, of course, you have the whole issue of the Civil War.  The Constitution was designed in a way that the only remedy unhappy states felt they had was to leave the Union, a provision that the Constitution oddly enough never addressed, further complicating the issue.  And the Confederacy was brought back into the Union at the hands of a President who ignored and butchered key provisions of the Constitution in order to preserve the Union.  Whether he was morally right in doing so is irrelevant; the very fact that the South seceded and Lincoln took the actions that he did is clear evidence of the grave flaws in the Constitution.

To me that question is self explanatory....As amended in the literal sense, yes. Not as interpreted by the courts to guarantee the "right" to abortion, for example (no where in the constitution).

[TJ in Oregon]

The Constitution is an imperfect document with numerous flaws, but like it or not, it is the rule book for our federal government. I've always thought the idea of a "living document" was a bit like arguing for a living interpretation of the NFL Rule Book in the middle of a football game. Right or wrong, it describes the law until it is changed. Honestly, I've always had some difficulty in understanding how people can possibly come to the opposite conclusion, or any number of the bizarre conclusions about the Constitution you here in the political world.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm proud of our Constitution. It guarantees us the right to free speech, to practice the faith we want, without persecution from our government.  I see nothing imperfect about it.

Proud of our Constitution as written or as amended?  As written, the Constitution allowed slavery and didn't afford women the right to vote.

If you argue that the Constitution is not imperfect, this is logically interpreted as meaning that it is perfect.  But then a perfect document would not have to be changed, for it is already perfect, and perfection cannot be improved.  Therefore, either the Constitution was imperfect upon its original creation and is now, in your eyes perfect, with its 25 changes (a somewhat odd and arbitrary point to place perfection), or it was perfect, and by the very nature of being substantively changed, can no longer be perfect.  So unless you are going to argue that the Constitution, as it is written today, is a perfect document, your statement makes no logical sense (and would preclude you from ever supporting an amendment in the future).

Then, of course, you have the whole issue of the Civil War.  The Constitution was designed in a way that the only remedy unhappy states felt they had was to leave the Union, a provision that the Constitution oddly enough never addressed, further complicating the issue.  And the Confederacy was brought back into the Union at the hands of a President who ignored and butchered key provisions of the Constitution in order to preserve the Union.  Whether he was morally right in doing so is irrelevant; the very fact that the South seceded and Lincoln took the actions that he did is clear evidence of the grave flaws in the Constitution.

To me that question is self explanatory....As amended in the literal sense, yes. Not as interpreted by the courts to guarantee the "right" to abortion, for example (no where in the constitution).

So you wouldn't support any further amendments to the Constitution?  Balanced budget amendment?  Definition of life amendment?