Originally posted by trumptman
I suggest you do a little reading on the case history on interracial marriage.
Loving v. Virginia didn't occur until the vast majority of all states had adopted interracial marriage as a legal right, and the public had come around. It was not a ruling forced upon 47 states by way of legal interracial marriages in 3 of them.
When we reach the point when 40 or so states have, on their own, adopted legalized gay marriage, then the chances of a SCOTUS ruling nationalizing things will be within the realm of possibility. We are decades off from that. It may not even happen in my lifetime.
According to you, one homosexual.
No, according to the American Psychological Association, the Americal Psychaitric Association, the American Medical Assocation and, oh yeah, ever gay person who hasn't been brainwashed by one of those gay-hating Jesus cults.
Except for if she want to move to one of those backwards non-progressive states where the courts won't recognize the marriage with her former spouse or the custodial rights she might have... right?
Then you have a quagmire, and there would be little that the wronged partner could do. That would be sad, but eventually gay marriage will find itself even into the fundamentalist-encrusted corners of this nation. Not anytime soon, perhaps not in the next 50 years.
However, I stand by my statement: the states in question will not be driven by their state courts to legalize gay marriage because of gay couples who are married from other states. And the SCOTUS will not climb decades out ahead of the country on this issue, either.
One would think I live in a state that represents my views. California offers a full array of domestic partnership rights but doesn't call it marriage. I've advocated civil unions for both homosexual and heterosexual couples who wish to avoid the religious and paternal baggage some associate with the word marriage.
Yet, here you are in this thread, arguing against gay equality.
Well, I'm sure that your view was echoed before Massachussetts decided as they did as well. As I recall, they decided in "favor of the gays" as you put it.
Jesus! This isn't even the same issue. We're discussing whether gay married folks from one state will force another state to recognize their marriage. The situation in Massachusetts was totally different and completely proper, if lamentably dogmatic.
Seems like it did in Vermont, California and Massachussetts.
In Vermont and Massachusetts the state supreme courts found that their Constitutions did not allow heterosexuals to have access to a marital institution and for gays to not have that same access. That's the proper role of a court. California's gay benefits system has been, to my knowledge, entirely legislature-driven.
That's not what we're discussing here, and I'd thank you not to conflate the issues. The issue we're discussing is whether gay married folks moving between states will force all states to accept gay marriages. That's a wholly different situation, and not one I think is any sort of a real "risk."
Which is why they will then attack it at the federal level using the equal protection clause.
And fail, because there is no national consensus on the issue and the Court will not walk that far ahead of the general population. It never has.
San Francisco has some balmy weather, and I don't just say that stereotypically.
I would never live in San Francisco. Yuck.
As for preferring cold weather..are you insane man?
No. But as you can see from my picture
, I am very ugly, and therefore do better the more of me I can keep covered. :-)
You can request free credit checks from all reporting agencies.
Yeah, I've done that. I had some problems with a checking account when I was in college in Kansas, which I believe I've gotten all cleared up (never let your parents talk you into leaving your bank in Dallas when you move to Kansas).
So all your ranting about a great conspiracy against fathers and men should be taken as being entirely serious?!?!
Might need to check that definition..
I was using the colloquial definition of bigot as one who is prejudiced in a negative way to people who are not like him/her due to unchangable demographic traits (race, age, gender, sexual orientation).
So far you seem to be intolerant of those who support civil unions,
I would prefer civil unions to gay marriage in the Massachusetts situation, as I have in this thread.
those who claim they were homosexuals and changed,
Because they are dangerous, brainwashed liars who support anti-gay hate cults.
I see and of course you possess this one "truth."
I do, as does anyone who supports equality. Equality is always an inherent good.
Likewise, how can something be "evil" without a religious connotation?
Anything that harms other people is evil. You don't have to believe in God (though I do) in order to recognize the difference between good and evil, and that both exist.
And since Clinton signed DOMA does that mean he is part of Bush's evil clan? What about the two-thirds of Democrats in both the house and Senate who voted for it?
Clinton was a slimy political creature who should have been thrown out of office for perjury. I have no real respect for him. And very little for the Democrats who voted for the DOMA _but the DOMA is and was a rather toothless law, and won't prevent the natural spread of gay marriage on a state by state basis.
The Constitutional Amendment that has been proposed, on the other hand, is one of the most evil laws ever proposed, and I hope very much that every child of every person in this country who supports it grows up to be either sterile, or gay.