MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[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.