MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[Thumpalumpacus]

Very, intersecting that you made this characteristic distinction because I agree with you in that distinctions should not be base on a SINGLE CHARACTERISTIC. Many on this board have argued that anything that a consensual adult does should be granted the right to do. This has been used to argued the acceptances of both polygamy and adult insist (which is illegal)

But it can be argued that even their argument only relies on the single issue of a consensual adult that is to be the factor in deciding.

A single issue is not the same as a single characteristic. Consent is something that can be changed, and not inherent to the person; they can change their minds so that what was good lovin' one day is rape the next week.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not something amenable to change; it is a fixed character of a person's sexual psychology. To argue that they should be treated differently for that reason doesn't hold water, to me.

True, and I am not deny any one any equal treatment, agree with or not. More to the point, which many seem to not be recognizing, it is the state (government) not any individual citizens who can decided the rights people have and take away (and they have legally) the rights of people. No person has such a power no matter what their own ideas are.

Indeed, rights are not subject to popular vote, and that's a good thing.

Also I have not advocated that anyone rights should be taken away or the unequal treatment of anyone. All I said is that if I don't not agree with same sex, that is my own right to do so, free from any form of prosecution of body or character.

Sure, we all have the right to opine, yourself included. None of us, however, are exempt from disagreement; if someone doesn't agree with me, that's my tough luck. I can try to engage them and change their minds, or I can ignore them.

In my opinion, folks who would deny gay persons the same right to marriage as straight folks are bigots. They can't present any valid objection to it; the right to equal treatment is Constitutional law; and the two reasons they oppose it are either "Eeeeewwww" or "God says don't do it", neither of which have any legal gravity whatsoever.

[Ace]

A single issue is not the same as a single characteristic. Consent is something that can be changed, and not inherent to the person; they can change their minds so that what was good lovin' one day is rape the next week.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not something amenable to change; it is a fixed character of a person's sexual psychology. To argue that they should be treated differently for that reason doesn't hold water, to me.

I was not arguing the distinction of the two,  topic issue vs. characteristic of homosexuality. I was saying that to use or the give of only a single reason to something should or should not be is what I was talking about.

Indeed, rights are not subject to popular vote, and that's a good thing.

But constitutional right's have been put to a vote. Even now they still are.

Now comes the question of what it a constitutional right? Right now the right to adoption is not a constitutional right, marital benefits are not a constitutional right. power of attorney or truest is not a  constitutional right, (in fact it can be given to anyone married or not married to that person). To have a home is not a right, and to have a job is not a constitutional right, especially in "right to work states"

And contrary to popular belief marriage is not a constitutional right. Right now it still is under contract law which is not read under, applied to/with, or listed under the Fundamental Right's Doctrine.
If it is a fundamental right, which mean that the fundamental right can not be taken way or prevented. A marriage contract, like any contract can be broken/taken way, ( annulment and divorces). So how is it a fundamental right if it already violates the two basic criteria of what is defined as a fundamental right?

A marriage can be prevented if one is not of the legal age, (even consent can be denied if parent does not agree with their young teen marring), right state of mind, in some states pass a medical check up, are biologically related, have to get a state licenses. And, (unless this has change I am not sure), if you have AIDS.

In my opinion folks who would [b]deny gay persons the same right to marriage as straight folks are bigots.

Good, then hopefully you will not evade this question as many have. I ask and say again does this also account for those in the homosexual community that do not agree with same sex marriage also? Are the just as guilty of denying their own community member's their rights for opposing same sex marriage?

They can't present any valid objection to it; the right to equal treatment is Constitutional law; and the two reasons they oppose it are either "Eeeeewwww" or "God says don't do it", neither of which have any legal gravity whatsoever.

Many gays who do not agree with same sex marriage have given their reason as to why but, I don't think you will care for them because the are in disagreement with you and the hole issue at hand.

Also,  you do know that there are many people who disagree with homosexuality that have nothing to do with religious reason or because the of the law. Many just don't agree with it.  

The issue of provided a "valid" argument is actually more of one of true opinion;  What is considered a valid reason? What may be valid to one may not be to the other. What is reasonable? What you may think is not a reasonable argument may be one to another.
So to argue that valid argument has not been given or has been given can not fully be the criteria for "pure prof" of the topic because it is susceptible to the realm of opinion.

As for "legal gravity"? nether does the Supreme Courts ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges. Which is not my opinion but what was stated by the Chef Justices Roberts himself.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I was not arguing the distinction of the two,  topic issue vs. characteristic of homosexuality. I was saying that to use or the give of only a single reason to something should or should not be is what I was talking about.

I know, and that was exactly my point, that you were drawing an inapt comparison.

But constitutional right's have been put to a vote. Even now they still are.

Now comes the question of what it a constitutional right? Right now the right to adoption is not a constitutional right, marital benefits are not a constitutional right. power of attorney or truest is not a  constitutional right, (in fact it can be given to anyone married or not married to that person). To have a home is not a right, and to have a job is not a constitutional right, especially in "right to work states"

And contrary to popular belief marriage is not a constitutional right. Right now it still is under contract law which is not read under, applied to/with, or listed under the Fundamental Right's Doctrine.
If it is a fundamental right, which mean that the fundamental right can not be taken way or prevented. A marriage contract, like any contract can be broken/taken way, ( annulment and divorces). So how is it a fundamental right if it already violates the two basic criteria of what is defined as a fundamental right?

The fundamental right under question is not marriage itself. I've mentioned it a couple of times already and would appreciate it if you read the entirety of my post with a modicum of comprehension. The right under question in the gay-marriage discussion is the right to equal protection under the law.

Now, you're right in saying that rights can be added to or taken away from the Constitution by vote; allow me to clarify my point, which is that state or federal laws cannot be voted-upon in legislature or via referendum to remove rights that are ensconced in the Constitution. Such votes must abide by the amendment clauses, to wit, 2/3 adoption by states with a supermajority deciding. That's a far higher standard than majority vote and such is good, imo. That's what I meant when I said "rights cannot be voted on", and I'm sorry for any confusion.

A marriage can be prevented if one is not of the legal age, (even consent can be denied if parent does not agree with their young teen marring), right state of mind, in some states pass a medical check up,  are biologically related,  have to get a state licenses. And, (unless this has change I am not sure), if you have AIDS.

No one is arguing that rights are untrammeled. What is being argued is that rights are equally apportioned per the 14th Amendment's guarantee.

Good, then hopefully you will not evade this question as many have. I ask and say again does this also account for those in the homosexual community that do not agree with same sex marriage also? Are the just as guilty of denying their own community member's their rights for opposing same sex marriage?

Do you have any examples you can link to of those folks? I don't know any gays who support discrimination against their own class. Please give viable support for the contention, and I will gladly share my opinion.

Many gays who do not agree with same sex marriage have given their reason as to why but, I don't think you will care for them because the are in disagreement with you and the hole issue at hand.

As above, I want to see support for this contention, because quite frankly, I don't buy it. Back your point with facts, and I will answer it.

Also,  you do know that there are many people who disagree with homosexuality that have nothing to do with religious reason or because the of the law. Many just don't agree with it.  

The issue of provided a "valid" argument is actually more of one of true opinion;  What is considered a valid reason? What may be valid to one may not be to the other. What is reasonable? What you may think is not a reasonable argument may be one to another.
So to argue that valid argument has not been given or has been given can not fully be the criteria for "pure prof" of the topic because it is susceptible to the realm of opinion.

I'm speaking in terms of validity in a court of law, because rights are legal constructs. It follows that legal validity is the only one which matters. In American jurisprudence, a religious objection to a Constitutional right is not legally valid because the court is enjoined from favoring religion by the Separation clause. And the "EEEEEwwwww" objection is also legally invalid, because distaste at the expression of a right is no reason to repress the rights of another.

Personal feelings aren't a sufficient reason for abrogating the rights of others.

As for "legal gravity"? nether does the Supreme Courts ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges. Which is not my opinion but what was stated by the Chef Justices Roberts himself.

.... in his dissenting opinion, having lost the argument with his fellow justices. He, and you, are on the wrong side of the argument.

Don't worry, no one's going to force you into a gay marriage. They're only going to ask you to mind your own business. Hopefully that shouldn't be too hard.

[Ace]

I know, and that was exactly my point, that you were drawing an inapt comparison.

Then you misunderstood my original statement, because it was only asking about an issue/topic  that was not base on any personal characteristic of a gay person or was even about any personal characteristic of a gay person . It was a topic issue. At no time was the use of a homosexual trait , characteristic, or nature of an individual  talked about or used in the debate about “oppositional view of same sex marriage equal bigotry”

My original post: That is a good question; am I only a bigot when I don't agree with you? Do I have to always agree with you to not be a bigot? . . . Can I ever say no? . . .If so, then how is that not what you accuse the religious of doing, "you can't force your own beliefs (ideas or views) on other people?

Nowhere am I tanking about anyone personal characteristic of homosexual. I am asking only about the topic of bigotry and what are its guild lines for its uses.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Your replay to my original post: Anyone wishing to deny equality to an entire group of people based only on a single characteristic that is not illegal qualifies as a bigot to me. It has nothing to do with who agrees with whom, and everything to do with whether or not one would deny groups of people equal treatment.

Me:    Very, intersecting that you made this characteristic distinction because I agree with you in that distinctions should not be base on a SINGLE CHARACTERISTIC. Many on this board have argued that anything that a consensual adult does should be granted the right to do. This has been used to argued the acceptances of both polygamy and adult insist (which is illegal)
   But it can be argued that even their argument only relies on the single issue of a consensual adult that is to be the factor in deciding.

You: A single issue is not the same as a single characteristic. Consent is something that can be changed, and not inherent to the person; they can change their minds so that what was good lovin' one day is rape the next week.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not something amenable to change; it is a fixed character of a person's sexual psychology. To argue that they should be treated differently for that reason doesn't hold water, to me.

Me:  I was not arguing the distinction of the two, topic issue vs. characteristic of homosexuality. I was saying that to use or the give of only a single reason to something should or should not be is what I was talking about.

The fundamental right under question is not marriage itself.  I've mentioned it a couple of times already and would appreciate it if you read the entirety of my post with a modicum of comprehension.

 
Easy, I was not trying to be not trying to make your argument less comprehensional or twist its meaning. This is the first time I had ever seen your post and was only replying to your replied post to mine. I have not every read or heard or your argument or your position one the issue. Therefore, please extend me the curtsey of this actually be a first time meeting of you, without any prior knowledge of you and your arguments.

The right under question in the gay-marriage discussion is the right to equal protection under the law.

Equal protection of the 14th Amendment  states that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction  However, if you read that section fully it actually grants the states the right to discriminate its citizen if they can show that the have a completing interest.

If the sate wishes to discriminate people, they first need to see, consideration is to be taken if the people are a member of  a protected class must be put up to the highest scrutiny when the state argues its position to discriminate.  Protected classes are listed as Race, Sex, Religion, Disability and Age. I may be missing one. If the people/person are not members of a protected class then the states only have to argue either low or medium scrutiny,

Homosexuality is not a protected class! Even in the ruling, Justices Kennedy could not and did not give homosexuals a protected class statues because it cannot be given a strict classification. The team is way to open as to define who fall’s under the class.

Also, you do know that 99% of the Supreme Courts ruling is based on the Due Process Clause NOT the Equal Protection? Only one line in the whole ruling is equal protection even mentioned. Kennedy’s entire ruling is under the Due Process Clause NOT Equal protection Clause.  Only one sentence, in the entirety of the ruling does equal protection come up and it is very flimsily applied.  It basically says “well because this is under due process then it is covered under the equal protection because they are like one in the same.” (Paraphrasing)  That is all! That is how Kennedy adds the equal protection clause; it is mention only in a passing sentence.

which is that state or federal laws cannot be voted-upon in legislature or via referendum to remove rights that are ensconced in the Constitution. Such votes must abide by the amendment clauses, to wit, 2/3 adoption by states with a super majority deciding.

You are taking about constitutional Amendments, not civil rights. (to which the people can decided on state laws)  Yet, even in the constitution There is no Federal Amendment about marriage.  No federal amendment what so ever talks of marriage, even the 14thamendment speaks noting about marriage. There are only at the state level (i.e. state constitutions) but. Were marriage, since colonial times, has been allocated to that state always.

The 13th, 14, and 15 Amendment which are also known as the reconstruction amendments, ex-slave amendments, reunification Amendments . . .were the Amendments after the Civil War that were passed for the freeing of African American Slaves, granting them citizenship (will all rights and privileges of the laws) and the right to vote.  Nowhere was the issue of marriage even in the mind set of these three laws?  

Also Civil Rights are State Rights not federal.

Do you have any examples you can link to of those folks? I don't know any gays who support discrimination against their own class.  Please give viable support for the contention, and I will gladly share my opinion.
. . .  I want to see support for this contention, because quite frankly, I don't buy it.  Back your point with facts, and I will answer it.

Sure,  go to Google and type in Gay’s against same sex marriage and a large amount of articles will pop up were these individuals tell their point of view.  (the sources are very big to site them all)

Hahaha, wow . . .is that really hard to believe. You do know people do not all agree right. There are always those who have apposing ideas. Even among those in the same “class” or group. Not all blacks agree with Affirmative Action, Not all women like Hillary Clinton, Not all democrats are liberal or republicans are conservative, Not all are against the death penalty, Not all of New York like the Yankees

I'm speaking in terms of validity in a court of law, because rights are legal constructs. It follows that legal validity is the only one which matters.. .

The one that is on the right side or have legal validity in regards to the law, is the one who has proper legal backing and support. If this is not applied then it is equal to saying that the judges are only basing their rulings on opinions.

Now If you truly, truly read the ruling, the majority has NO proper legal backing or support, which is why Justice Roberts rips the majority’s opinion with proper legal backing and support to shreds.  The one who is going to be on the right side of any argument are the ones who arguments are not based on pathos.

. . .  because distaste at the expression of a right is no reason to repress the rights of another.  . . Personal feelings aren't a sufficient reason for abrogating the rights of others.

I agree and therefore I should and do have the right under freedom of speech, (which also include right to conduct,  that is to engage in or not engage in something) to oppose any ideas and express my opinions without having to be susceptible to prosecution, bodily harm, or defamation of character. Because like you said  . . . "Personal feelings aren't a sufficient reason for abrogating the rights of others."

There for you original statement about what qualify as a bigot is also invalid because it is based on your opinion.
“Anyone wishing to deny equality to an entire group of people based only on a single characteristic that is not illegal qualifies as a bigot to me.

Don't worry, no one's going to force you into a gay marriage. They're only going to ask you to mind your own business.  Hopefully that shouldn't be too hard.

Oh, no worry's that's the last thing I fear.  I am just saying I should be allowed to oppose and express my opposition freely to ideas of any topic with out being called a bigot.
Because in your own statement you are contradicting your self with you can have your opinion but , "Anyone wishing to deny equality to an entire group of people based only on a single characteristic that is not illegal qualifies as a bigot to me. It has nothing to do with who agrees with whom, and everything to do with whether or not one would deny groups of people equal treatment."  , , ,

No it is actually about someone just having an opposing the view of the issue because as stated and agree, I have no power to take away anyone's rights or any power to act out my opinion. And Amendments are voted only by congress not by popular/i.e. the people's vote. So by law of the land and definition, opposition it is just arguing or having an opposing idea, NOTHING MORE. So do not fear opposing views to opinions they you may have but not someone else , they have no power and let up on the name calling, because there is nothing to be scared of.

[Anima]

The fundamental right under question is not marriage itself.  I've mentioned it a couple of times already and would appreciate it if you read the entirety of my post with a modicum of comprehension.  The right under question in the gay-marriage discussion is the right to equal protection under the law.

1. Your statement about the right to equal protection under the law shows you did not read the ruling whatsoever. So let me help you out a bit (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14p...6_3204.pdf).

Page 2 (b)(2):
" The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs"

Translation: The due process clause protects a persons right to dignity in intimate choices.

The due process clause makes no such protection and only requires the State exercise proper procedure in the application of law which will deny a person life, liberty (meaning freedom from incarceration), or property.

Page 4 (b)(3):
" The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other"

Translation: Because the right to dignity is protected in the due process clause and the equal protection clause and due process clause are connected in a profound way (he does not describe the way nor has it ever been recognized they are connected in a profound way) then the due process clause protection implies there is some kind of equal protection clause protection.

This is to say there was no equal protection clause support for the ruling. But since there is a sort of due process clause support there must be an equal protection support as well. It is pointed out adeptly by Chief Justice Roberts that there was no equal protection violation or support for the ruling

In short the ruling was not based on equal protection under the law. But rather on a BS argument to dignity that does not exist in the constitution.

[Whateverist]

Hurrah! Somehow this rabidly conservative court has ruled that states cannot withhold from gays the benefits and state backed responsibilities of marriage. It is time for those with this particular axe to grind to let it go and find some other target for their bitterness and intolerance.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Then you misunderstood my original statement, because it was only asking about an issue/topic  that was not base on any personal characteristic of a gay person or was even about any personal characteristic of a gay person . It was a topic issue. At no time was the use of a homosexual trait , characteristic, or nature of an individual  talked about or used in the debate about “oppositional view of same sex marriage equal bigotry”

That doesn't change the fact that you are of the opinion that gay folks should be denied the right to marriage based upon one and only one characteristic. The wish to deny rights you enjoy to others based on the fact that they are different than you is an act of bigotry. In other words, you are no being called a bigot because you disagree with anyone. You're being called a bigot because you're espousing support for a bigoted act.

Easy, I was not trying to be not trying to make your argument less comprehensional or twist its meaning. This is the first time I had ever seen your post and was only replying to your replied post to mine. I have not every read or heard or your argument or your position one the issue. Therefore, please extend me the curtsey of this actually be a first time meeting of you, without any prior knowledge of you and your arguments.

From post #78, early in the thread:

The Fourteenth Amendment says what it says: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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. That, very simply, means that all Americans are entitled to the same rights.  It is not topic-specific.

I am hardly the only one in this thread to have made the point about the 14th Amendment, either.

The right under question in the gay-marriage discussion is the right to equal protection under the law.

Equal protection of the 14th Amendment  states that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction  However, if you read that section fully it actually grants the states the right to discriminate its citizen if they can show that the have a completing [sic] interest.

Firstly, it is "compelling" interest, not "completing". Secondly, there is no compelling interest to drive the state to the point of dictating who may marry whom. None.

If the sate wishes to discriminate people, they first need to see, consideration is to be taken if the people are a member of  a protected class must be put up to the highest scrutiny when the state argues its position to discriminate.  Protected classes are listed as Race, Sex, Religion, Disability and Age. I may be missing one. If the people/person are not members of a protected class then the states only have to argue either low or medium scrutiny,

The state has no compelling interest in denying gays equal treatment under the law. Simply because gays aren't a protected class does not mean the state has a compelling interest.

Homosexuality is not a protected class! Even in the ruling, Justices Kennedy could not and did not give homosexuals a protected class statues because it cannot be given a strict classification. The team is way to open as to define who fall’s under the class.

No one is arguing that they're a protected class. That is irrelevant to this discussion, though. The fact is, they are American citizens and are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

Also, you do know that 99% of the Supreme Courts ruling is based on the Due Process Clause NOT the Equal Protection? Only one line in the whole ruling is equal protection even mentioned. Kennedy’s entire ruling is under the Due Process Clause NOT Equal protection Clause.  Only one sentence, in the entirety of the ruling does equal protection come up and it is very flimsily applied.  It basically says “well because this is under due process then it is covered under the equal protection because they are like one in the same.” (Paraphrasing)  That is all! That is how Kennedy adds the equal protection clause; it is mention only in a passing sentence.

Right, because due process is the way that equal protection is applied on a daily basis.

You are taking about constitutional Amendments, not civil rights. (to which the people can decided on state laws)  Yet, even in the constitution There is no Federal Amendment about marriage.  No federal amendment what so ever talks of marriage, even the 14thamendment speaks noting about marriage. There are only at the state level (i.e. state constitutions) but. Were marriage, since colonial times, has been allocated to that state always.

This is why I pointed out to you earlier that I am not arguing gays have the right to marriage, but rather the right to equal treatment. That right to equal treatment, however, means that when a state grants a privilege to people (such as marriage), it must grant that privilege equally.

If you would read what I wrote, this conversation would go much smoother. It's irritating that you ignore some of my points and impute others upon me which I didn't make.

The 13th, 14, and 15 Amendment which are also known as the reconstruction amendments, ex-slave amendments, reunification Amendments . . .were the Amendments after the Civil War that were passed for the freeing of African American Slaves, granting them citizenship (will all rights and privileges of the laws) and the right to vote.  Nowhere was the issue of marriage even in the mind set of these three laws?  

No, but in the 14th Amendment, "equal treatment under the law" is specifically guaranteed.

Also Civil Rights are State Rights not federal.

Factually incorrect. Go look up the Bill of Rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act ... I could go on.

Do you have any examples you can link to of those folks? I don't know any gays who support discrimination against their own class.  Please give viable support for the contention, and I will gladly share my opinion.
. . .  I want to see support for this contention, because quite frankly, I don't buy it.  Back your point with facts, and I will answer it.

Sure,  go to Google and type in Gay’s against same sex marriage and a large amount of articles will pop up were these individuals tell their point of view.  (the sources are very big to site them all)

No. You made the claim, you provide your sources, and then I'll answer your question. It is not my job to support your claims for you.

Hahaha, wow . . .is that really hard to believe. You do know people do not all agree right. There are always those who have apposing ideas. Even among those in the same “class” or group. Not all blacks agree with Affirmative Action, Not all women like Hillary Clinton, Not all democrats are liberal or republicans are conservative, Not all are against the death penalty, Not all of New York like the Yankees

I know plenty of gay folk. I do not know one who supports the denial of equal rights to gays. Link me to your source for that claim.

As for the rest of that paragraph, it's all strawmen, so I'm not going to give it any attention.

I'm speaking in terms of validity in a court of law, because rights are legal constructs. It follows that legal validity is the only one which matters.. .

The one that is on the right side or have legal validity in regards to the law, is the one who has proper legal backing and support. If this is not applied then it is equal to saying that the judges are only basing their rulings on opinions.

Now If you truly, truly read the ruling, the majority has NO proper legal backing or support, which is why Justice Roberts rips the majority’s opinion with proper legal backing and support to shreds.  The one who is going to be on the right side of any argument are the ones who arguments are not based on pathos.

No. You're wrong, and I've shown you why. I don't see the point of continuing this discussion any further, given your gross incomprehension.

. . .  because distaste at the expression of a right is no reason to repress the rights of another.  . . Personal feelings aren't a sufficient reason for abrogating the rights of others.

I agree and therefore I should and do have the right under freedom of speech, (which also include right to conduct,  that is to engage in or not engage in something) to oppose any ideas and express my opinions without having to be susceptible to prosecution, bodily harm, or defamation of character. Because like you said  . . . "Personal feelings aren't a sufficient reason for abrogating the rights of others."

You do have the freedom to speak as you wish. You are not free of the repercussions of your speech. As for defamation of character, here in America, veracity is a legitimate defense against that charge. You wish to deny equal rights to others based on an arbitrary charactierstic, and absent any compelling need of the state. That makes you a bigot.

Don't like it? Tough shit.

There for you original statement about what qualify as a bigot is also invalid because it is based on your opinion.
“Anyone wishing to deny equality to an entire group of people based only on a single characteristic that is not illegal qualifies as a bigot to me.

An opinion is not "valid" or "invalid", because it is not a logical argument, Einstein.

In my opinion, you are indeed a bigot, based on the reasoning I presented which you were kind enough to quote.

Oh, no worry's that's the last thing I fear.  I am just saying I should be allowed to oppose and express my opposition freely to ideas of any topic with out being called a bigot.

Well, if your opinion is in support of discriminatory treatment of a minority, then you should expect to be called a bigot.

Because in your own statement you are contradicting your self with you can have your opinion but , "Anyone wishing to deny equality to an entire group of people based only on a single characteristic that is not illegal qualifies as a bigot to me. It has nothing to do with who agrees with whom, and everything to do with whether or not one would deny groups of people equal treatment."  , , ,

There is nothing internally contradictory.

No it is actually about someone just having an opposing the view of the issue because as stated and agree, I have no power to take away anyone's rights or any power to act out my opinion.

No, it's not about whether or no you agree with me, it's about whether or not you support discrimination. You have made it perfectly clear that you do, but when it is pointed out that you are supporting discrimination and are therefore a bigot, you squeal about how you should have the right to not only opine, but to be free of plain critique. Sorry, that isn't the way free discourse works, and I'm not going to soften my words to appease your delicate sensibilities.

Don't like it? Tough shit.

And Amendments are voted only by congress not by popular/i.e. the people's vote. So by law of the land and definition, opposition it is just arguing or having an opposing idea, NOTHING MORE. So do not fear opposing views to opinions they you may have but not someone else , they have no power and let up on the name calling, because there is nothing to be scared of.

You realize that the Congressmen who voted into law so many discriminatory laws were elected by the people, right? That means that when a person opines in support of discrimination, I will answer it, because anyone reading this exchange should know exactly why you and your ilk are wrong, so that when it comes time to vote, they will not vote a bigot into office.

You may have the last word. I won't be wasting any more time replying to you.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The fundamental right under question is not marriage itself.  I've mentioned it a couple of times already and would appreciate it if you read the entirety of my post with a modicum of comprehension.  The right under question in the gay-marriage discussion is the right to equal protection under the law.

1.  Your statement about the right to equal protection under the law shows you did not read the ruling whatsoever.  So let me help you out a bit (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14p...6_3204.pdf).  

Page 2 (b)(2):
" The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs"

Translation:  The due process clause protects a persons right to dignity in intimate choices.  

The due process clause makes no such protection and only requires the State exercise proper procedure in the application of law which will deny a person life, liberty (meaning freedom from incarceration), or property.

Page 4 (b)(3):
" The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other"

Translation:  Because the right to dignity is protected in the due process clause and the equal protection clause and due process clause are connected in a profound way (he does not describe the way nor has it ever been recognized they are connected in a profound way) then the due process clause protection implies there is some kind of equal protection clause protection.

This is to say there was no equal protection clause support for the ruling.  But since there is a sort of due process clause support there must be an equal protection support as well.  It is pointed out adeptly by Chief Justice Roberts that there was no equal protection violation or support for the ruling

In short the ruling was not based on equal protection under the law.  But rather on a BS argument to dignity that does not exist in the constitution.

You realize that due process is a subset of equal protection, right? It is a narrow and specialized form of it.

[Anima]

1.  Your statement about the right to equal protection under the law shows you did not read the ruling whatsoever.  So let me help you out a bit (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14p...6_3204.pdf).  

Page 2 (b)(2):
" The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs"

Translation:  The due process clause protects a persons right to dignity in intimate choices.  

The due process clause makes no such protection and only requires the State exercise proper procedure in the application of law which will deny a person life, liberty (meaning freedom from incarceration), or property.

Page 4 (b)(3):
" The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other"

Translation:  Because the right to dignity is protected in the due process clause and the equal protection clause and due process clause are connected in a profound way (he does not describe the way nor has it ever been recognized they are connected in a profound way) then the due process clause protection implies there is some kind of equal protection clause protection.

This is to say there was no equal protection clause support for the ruling.  But since there is a sort of due process clause support there must be an equal protection support as well.  It is pointed out adeptly by Chief Justice Roberts that there was no equal protection violation or support for the ruling

In short the ruling was not based on equal protection under the law.  But rather on a BS argument to dignity that does not exist in the constitution.

You realize that due process is a subset of equal protection, right? It is a narrow and specialized form of it.

The Due Process clause is a subset of the 14th Amendment. It is not a subset of the Equal Protection clause. As enumerated in the 14th Amendment:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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."

For example a law is not in violation of the Equal Protection clause if the discrimination in questions satisfies reasonable, intermediate, or strict scrutiny respectively. Even so such a law may still violate the Due Process clause. As stated by Kennedy himself where he stipulates:

Page 4 (b)(3):
" The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other"

Meaning they are not the same thing and one is not a subset of another.

[Ace]

it's about whether or not you support discrimination. You have made it perfectly clear that you do, but when it is pointed out that you are supporting discrimination and are therefore a bigot,

Oh, you are so wrong.

I am wondering to even replay because of your unwillingness to reciprocate the respect of responding to online chats,

As said before, I have just meat you and have addressed your only because of your reply to my post. Yet, you continue to get angry with me because I failed to read pre post were you posited your arguments on this issue, (it is not until you last reply that you even mention where you have posted in this thread), even when informed of my introduction to you. Amazing. Now I have not gone back to read your argument and truly will be lying to you if a said I will. Personal I just do not wish to go throughout the entire thread to search for only your argument.

Now Under the same token of you over reacting to someone who has not read your post, Am I allowed to get mad just like you because you have not read my position on the issue? Because if you actually read my point of view it is seeking equality for all. You assume because I don't agree I am like the bigot. Yet because we both disagree it is not for the same reason. The bigot that you speak of “oppose {because it is} either "Eeeeewwww" or "God says don't do it", neither of which have any legal gravity whatsoever.” They wish to still have marriage for straight people and not for gays.

But my reason is so that everyone will be truly equal because no one’s right are denied that are kept firmly intact.

I DO NOT AGREE with ANY MARRIAGE period. I don't care what you’re fucking!

Yet, I who am single, have to recognize and even pay for people marriages?

All that marriage actually does is create classes between those who are not married and those who are. People have always tried to elevate this bull shit union into something that is different or better than the masses. First it was only common among people of royal blood and the nobles, then religion took it take give it its pump and ceremony in now connecting two people “to god”, to it now being an act that bestows dignity and security.

The institution has been and is still trying to remain a thing for the elite’s. It still, even today, is given dignity, tax breaks, and benefits. Yet, we who do not wish to marry or are not married, what do we receive? We are not given an elites statues, tax breaks, and benefits from either the state or the federal governments?!!This also includes signal parents or cohabitating couples.

Are we no longer citizens? Are we to be counted as only a 3/5th of a person? Many will say no, and yet not one of those “marriage only goods” is being given to use. So who is being treated unfairly here? Who is being denied here of the 14th amendment right of equal protection and due process under the law?

You may also say that there is a different? I ask you what is that differences? We have established that marriage is not procreated centric, or that marriage is not needed to have children, any legal authority that your partner has in marriage can also be granted though power of attorney or a will in testament. Hell, civil unions have proven that everything that is assumed to be “tied” to only marriage can be given outside of marriage. Laws can also be implemented to grant/fix any issue that relationship may face that is in need of legal protection. So why do we have marriage? Why are “certain” right, exemption and benefits even given to marriages?

Because two people stood before someone who dress like the damn KKK, say a bunch of bull shit words that don't mean shit because anyone can just get a divorce and leave, which is more than likely going to happen in the ending, (Even that the people have to pay for you fucks to divorces by pay for the damn court and judge) That and that only is what grants the bestowing of dignity? What makes you a couple? Gives you privileges and benefits? That action?

NO WAY !!!

If you want the world to know that you make a fake promise to someone then put in the damn paper, billboard, internet, and the many other ways to speak to the mass. But don't make the state and the people of that state have to give marriage only privileges of fucking dignity, pay and given you damn benefits so you can feel happy and less shameful inside.

Look At my position this way, the people’s money goes to pay for the religious who have tax exempt status? But why, because you hear voices telling you that it is God? I am not even a member of 99.999999% of the religious that receive this exemption. Yet, I have to pay for it?? Hey you want your building where you can see your god, fine but don't ask me to recognize that you are someone “special” because you speaking to someone invisible and don't ask me to pay for your crazy shit also. Same with Marriage period!! I am not in the damn marriage so I could give a shit who you are fucking, so don't ask me to recognize your personal fuck buddy, and don’t ask me to pay for your marriage also, hell I am not even getting anything out of it for the part I am in.

No, it is marriage that is asking not for rights or equality, it is asking for privileges!! It is marriage that is trying to keep the elite class separated and treated/viewed differently than rest of the non-marring people. That is not equality or rights, which I am very much for!!!!!! Those for marriage are actually not for fully and equal equality and same rights to everyone.