MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[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.