MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[IanHulett]

Here's a hilarious video by Ellen Degeneres. My favorite one of all her stand ups regarding bigots:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mZezLwvr1k

[Anima]

"Even assuming that the “liberty” in those Clauses encompasses something more than freedom from physical restraint, it would not include the types of rights claimed by the majority. In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.

The founding-era understanding of liberty was heavily influenced by John Locke, whose writings “on natural rights and on the social and governmental contract” were cited “[i]n pamphlet after pamphlet” by American writers. B. Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 27 (1967). Locke described men as existing in a state of nature, possessed of the “perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.” J. Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, §4, p. 4 (J. Gough ed. 1947) (Locke). Because that state of nature left men insecure in their persons and property, they entered civil society, trading a portion of their natural liberty for an increase in their security. See id., §97, at 49. Upon consenting to that order, men obtained civil liberty, or the freedom “to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact according to the trust put in it.” Id., §22, at 13.4" - Justice Thomas

[Ace]

I'm going to assume you're not a big fan of homosexuality. It sucks for you that you're stuck on this forum with a biromantic, gray ace(me) who enjoys the fact that I cannot be discriminated against based on my sexuality/romantic orientat... *cough* *cough* *cough* DAMMIT!!! I promised myself I wouldn't do that anymore!!! Agh!!! I'm sorry for gloating. It's kind of a reflex that I've been trying to break since marriage equality came into effect.

Fan or no fan, of gays has no barring of the fact of gays not being a protect class.

Also how the fuck can one be a "fan" about being gay. I was under the assumption that it was natural. Its like saying i am a fan of the sun. Which has nothing to with me being a fan or no. The sun just fucking is, because it is natural element in our solar system
But hey, I could be wrong of homosexuality being a natural occurrences. . . Like you have pointed out, I have been wrong before.

Is it not the issue of housing, employment, adoption law and other shit they gay are already fitting in court? They can not argue as protected class.

Assume all you want. I already know your an ass for you assuming shit you don't know anything about me!

[IanHulett]

I'm going to assume you're not a big fan of homosexuality. It sucks for you that you're stuck on this forum with a biromantic, gray ace(me) who enjoys the fact that I cannot be discriminated against based on my sexuality/romantic orientat... *cough* *cough* *cough* DAMMIT!!! I promised myself I wouldn't do that anymore!!! Agh!!! I'm sorry for gloating. It's kind of a reflex that I've been trying to break since marriage equality came into effect.

Fan or no fan, of gays has no barring of the fact of gays not being a protect class.

Also how the fuck can one be a "fan" about being gay.    I was under the assumption that it was natural. Its like saying i am a fan of the sun. Which has nothing to with me being a fan or no. The sun just fucking is, because it is natural element in our solar system
But hey, I could be wrong of homosexuality being a natural occurrences. . . Like you have pointed out, I have been wrong before.

Is it not the issue of housing, employment, adoption law and other shit they gay are already fitting in court? They can not argue  as protected class.

Assume all you want. I already know your an ass for you assuming shit you don't know anything about me!

Geez. That's like saying I'm not a fan of The Amazing Atheist because he's a real person.

When did I point out you being wrong? I was simply succumbing to my unfortunate reflex of gloating. I DID say I apologize for that. It's kind of tough to resist the urge when it comes up.

Well, all these things are simply a matter of viewing gay people as... well... people, obviously, that have equal rights.

Hey. I was just going by what I was reading. Whether or not you intended it that way, you kind of come across as a homophobe because of your lack of belief in Homosexuality as a legitimate protected class.

Unless I'm confusing you with someone else here? Hang on a second... 

*3 seconds later*

Nope. Just looked. I got the right person.

Did the court over set its bounds? hell yes 

Why are you opposed to gay marriage?  It is not so much marriage itself that I oppose. It is the fact that to democracy was taken way from the people. The people of the state's (better or for worse) had voted on the issue as they have a legal right to do so.

How so, did court overset its bounds? It was a 5:4 vote in favor of same sex marriage in the court ruling. Majority wins. That's how democracy works.

[Anima]

http://atheistforums.org/thread-33691-po...#pid991499

6. Protected Class: Finally in regards to your question of a protected class. To be defined as a protected class the:

"Courts consider four rough factors in deciding whether to treat a legislative classification as suspect and presumptively unconstitutional: whether the group has been historically victimized by governmental discrimination; whether it has a defining characteristic that legitimately bears on the classification; whether it exhibits unchanging characteristics that define it as a discrete group; and whether it is politically powerless" (Deboer V. Snyder; http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf...75p-06.pdf)

In this regard it was ruled by the 6th Circuit court of appeals that persons of same sex orientations at best only satisfy the governmental discrimination factor. The class does not have a defining characteristic, unchanging characteristic defining them a discrete group, and they are not politically powerless.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-33691-po...#pid992603

3. Protected class: It is funny you should bring up various criminal groups in regards to a protected class. I did the same when I was in law school because the 4 step criterion certainly seems applicable to murders, rapists, addicts, pedos, etcetera. The general answer I got were; first, no one is fighting to protect these classes or willing to hear their request to be a protected class. So they will not become one. Second, these groups of people do not fit the criterion of an unchanging characteristic making the group determinable (I had a very hard time with this answer as it could be argued the suffer from mental deficiency not unlike a mental disability). Third, even if designated a protected class these groups would be subject to strict scrutiny by which the State's compelling interest would override their rights as a class to permit discrimination of them. (Note: A federal right to dignity was not discussed at the time as it was held the law does not confer dignity. However, it may now be possible to say any law singling out a group for given activity is being persecuted and is violation of their substantive right to dignity).

[Ace]

Fan or no fan, of gays has no barring of the fact of gays not being a protect class.

Also how the fuck can one be a "fan" about being gay.  :huh:  I was under the assumption that it was natural. Its like saying i am a fan of the sun. Which has nothing to with me being a fan or no. The sun just fucking is, because it is natural element in our solar system
But hey, I could be wrong of homosexuality being a natural occurrences. . . Like you have pointed out, I have been wrong before.

Is it not the issue of housing, employment, adoption law and other shit they gay are already fitting in court? They can not argue  as protected class.

Assume all you want. I already know your an ass for you assuming shit you don't know anything about me! :D

Geez. That's like saying I'm not a fan of The Amazing Atheist because he's a real person.

When did I point out you being wrong? I was simply succumbing to my unfortunate reflex of gloating. I DID say I apologize for that. It's kind of tough to resist the urge when it comes up.

Well, all these things are simply a matter of viewing gay people as... well... people, obviously, that have equal rights.

Hey. I was just going by what I was reading. Whether or not you intended it that way, you kind of come across as a homophobe because of your lack of belief in Homosexuality as a legitimate protected class.

Unless I'm confusing you with someone else here? Hang on a second... 

*3 seconds later*

Nope. Just looked. I got the right person.

Did the court over set its bounds? hell yes 

Why are you opposed to gay marriage?  It is not so much marriage itself that I oppose. It is the fact that to democracy was taken way from the people. The people of the state's (better or for worse) had voted on the issue as they have a legal right to do so.

How so, did court overset its bounds? It was a 5:4 vote in favor of same sex marriage in the court ruling. Majority wins. That's how democracy works.

Hmmm you are right if you just read my reply and not all of the conversation. It could be seen as being mad. I have talked to the guy I responded to before and the 14th amendment always comes up. My argument is in opposing to the majority. But I am one who never like to take and discusses the majority view under the majority idea. Conterversy, opposition, against, should never be feared and should always be done to any majority rule or thought. It is not only a matter of fun but either make the view/iead stronger or weaker.

As for not being a protected class. No not under the law, homosexuality is not a protected class. Even the during the argument in the court the same sex lawer argued that the gay members of the community should be grant a class. This was not done in the final ruling. In the federal law it is listed who is considered a protected class.


No opposition should ever be stopped, feared, or made quite.

As for you question about were I see the government over stepped it self. Marrige has always been under the state to decide. Even justices robberts said that this case should have been sent back to the states.

[Ace]

Yes majority wins! That is democracy! So when the people voted in the majority to ban same sex marriage in their own states. The issue should have been stop and the gay community should have moved on.

[Athene]

  You need to read my last post again. I never stated that I have to run to the internet to shore up any particular argument. That was directed towards you. That being said, I freely admit that I am not a Constitutional law scholar nor have I ever pretended to be. I just don't accept that the ability to post various portions of the Constitution on a forum can be considered expertise. It simply isn't.
  You can argue all day as to whether all people are equal or not, but that really isn't the issue.  This case, to my understanding was about whether lesbians and gays are entitled to equal protection under the law. States rights and laws become a non-issue if  Constitutional rights are being violated.  I'm certain you'll disagree and post yet another lengthy argument, so have at. It doesn't change the fact that this matter has already been decides by justices who actually have true knowledge and insight into the Constitution. That's why they're sitting on the Supreme Court and you're posting shit online, pretending that you're a damn lawyer.

Umm...  That is in fact the issue.  Furthermore States rights may only be overridden by the Commerce or Supremacy clause.  All the ruling has done is made it so any prohibition on gays or lesbians in marriage must pass strict scrutiny rather than rational basis scrutiny (feel free to look it up on the internet).  So this matter has not already been decided today anymore than it was when the bans were democratically put in place barring gays and lesbians.

I did post much of Chief Justice John Roberts comments in the dissenting opinion (you know one of the people sitting on the Supreme court).  Must of my legal statements are just explanation of his.  But I do like your posting shit online argument and pretending.  Since it appears many are posting shit and pretending they know what they are talking about (such as yourself) when they have NO FUCKING CLUE HOW THE LAW WORKS!!!  That does not keep you from posting.  So I with my wee bit more knowledge than you of how the law works shall continue.

Isn't it ironic that those of us who you claim have no clue as to how the law works, were accurate in predicting the outcome of the Court? Looks like you're the one that has no fucking clue how the law works!

[Ace]

Isn't it ironic that those of us who you claim have no clue as to how the law works, were accurate in predicting the outcome of the Court? Looks like you're the one that has no fucking clue how the law works!

HAHAHAH . . . . . .DAMN YOU ARE REALLY FUNNY.

You are basing your knowledge on prediction?????!!!! Oh man, that is just too much!!

Hold on, let me tell you a secret. Come in closer now  

(in a whispering voice) Isn’t it also funny that the only way to find out if your predictions are true is if, . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . (come on, you should know the answer? hmm? well just predict, come on) . . . . . . .  . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . .no?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . not feeling the force?.  . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .;. . . . nothing  coming to you? . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . hmmm maybe you "espn" is not work. Maybe you should call the sports channel "esp" for their prediction, they are usually spot on. . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . .  .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . .  .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Still nothing? .Ok, ok, Well Check Out My God Like Force Ability. This will blow your fucking mind, baby. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Keep you eyes open now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . .  . . . you what to know when your predictions are right? . . . . .huh. . .  .huh. . . .do you? do you?  . Come in a little closer now. . .well you know when your predictions are right  . . . . .(in a loud as hell voice) . . . . AFTER  . . . . . . . .THEY. . . . . .FUCKING. . . . . . . .HAPPEN . . .  . . .!!!          

"Hey McFly. Hello, hello, hello anybody home"

Prediction in correlation to knowledge is just like Jack and Shit's correlation to each other. Not a god damn thing! !
“Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge.”- Lao Tzu

[Athene]

I know that you understand which definition of the word prediction I used in my statement.  I suppose these childish antics and rants are to be expected from a couple of loser bookends like you and your attorney-impersonating buddy.  It's apparent you both harbor religious and/or personal objections to same-sex marriage that you relentlessly try present as a legitimate legal arguments. Both you and Anime appear to be highly offended that the majority of Americans do not share your view, and you both are seemingly sick with rage in regards to the Supreme Court ruling.
Why is that? Because you honestly believe that every American should be subjected to the laws of your particular God?  Or do you think that US citizens should be denied basic rights simply because you think being gay is gross and icky? Why can't you understand that no one gives a shit about your nonsense religious beliefs or what personally disgusts you?
Those are all rhetorical questions by the way, because there's no point in going back and forth about this. Same-sex marriage is a done deal and there's not a goddamn thing bigoted assholes can do about it. And that's a reason to smile!
                                                             THE END