Court restores Nebraska samesex marraige ban

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1
And so whats the problem here if in YOUR mind they are the same? Let it be...let me have my religeous freedom.

And please quote which constitutional amendment I get that a homosexual doesnt?

If you mean rights that apply to you, but not to homosexuals, there aren't any. If you mean rights that you want to deny others who happen to be gay, try the 14th Amendent to the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection

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.

OTOH, the U.S. Constitution grants you NO "freedom" to use your religion as a lame excuse to enact civil legislation restricting the civil rights of others. If you believe it does, it's your turn to provide a link to that text.

OK so where am I denying rights if civil union is allowed? Heck. At the company I work at now gay unmarried partners can get benefits, yet straight unmarried partners cannot. If anything -I- have LESS rights than someone who is gay 🙂

Again. Where am I denying anything by allowing civil unions?

Separate but equal is not equal, remember?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
OK so where am I denying rights if civil union is allowed?

Are you reading challenged? :roll:

Heck. At the company I work at now gay unmarried partners can get benefits, yet straight unmarried partners cannot. If anything -I- have LESS rights than someone who is gay 🙂

OK. So now, you have a reason to fight for your own rights for you and your SO, as well as gays, regardless of which flavor you prefer. 🙂

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: zendari

Who decides what should be up for a vote and shouldn't be? You?

the constitution (interpreted by the judiciary) I would have thought

The good thing is its God Rainsford and the liberals who determines when this judiciary is right and wrong. :roll:

So I'm not allowed to have a personal opinion on the issue? Jeez, and here I thought this was the good old US of A. But apparently nobody is allowed to think the judicial branch is wrong on this particular issue.

Just to put things in perspective...how do you feel about Roe v. Wade? You too JEDIYoda...

Well this is just another case of minority opinion screaming for attention. The country has already spoken.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well this is just another case of minority opinion screaming for attention. The country has already spoken.

OK. I give up. You ARE reading challenged. Under the Constitution, "The country" (meaning current popular opinion) doesn't have the right to impose its will on the minority when that will is an attempt to limit the Constitutionally defined rights of a particular group of its citizens.

If that's the best argument you can post to support wanting to inflict your personal bigotry on others, you failed civics. 😛

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well this is just another case of minority opinion screaming for attention. The country has already spoken.

OK. I give up. You ARE reading challenged. Under the Constitution, "The country" (meaning current popular opinion) doesn't have the right to impose its will on the minority when that will is an attempt to limit the Constitutionally defined rights of a particular group of its citizens.

If that's the best argument you can post to support wanting to inflict your personal bigotry on others, you failed civics. 😛

And if this is your best reply to this particular comment, you failed at reading the entire post, and my stance on it 😛

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
And if this is your best reply to this particular comment, you failed at reading the entire post, and my stance on it 😛

No, it was just my statement of disgust and pity for your feeble comperhension skills after I posted the complete relevant text from the U.S. Constitution and referred you to my previous post about the tyranny of the majority. Since you couldn't handle such explicit text, I doubt it will help if I repost a more informed opinion from John Stuart Mill's Essay, On Liberty.

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant ? society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it ? its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries.

Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.

Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.

There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism. ? On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.7

Don't bother replying until you have something stronger than your own ill-informed opinion to support your bigotry.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1
And if this is your best reply to this particular comment, you failed at reading the entire post, and my stance on it 😛

No, it was just my statement of disgust and pity for your feeble comperhension skills after I posted the complete relevant text from the U.S. Constitution and referred you to my previous post about the tyranny of the majority. Since you couldn't handle such explicit text, I doubt it will help if I repost a more informed opinion from John Stuart Mill's Essay, On Liberty.

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant ? society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it ? its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries.

Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.

Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.

There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism. ? On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.7

Don't bother replying until you have something stronger than your own ill-informed opinion to support your bigotry.

Well, obviously our interpretation of the constitution differes. Thats fine. I'll continue to stand with the majority of the country. I will compromise, as previously stated, but I wont turn over MY beliefs for the sake of someone else's with whom I dont agree.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: zendari

Who decides what should be up for a vote and shouldn't be? You?

the constitution (interpreted by the judiciary) I would have thought

The good thing is its God Rainsford and the liberals who determines when this judiciary is right and wrong. :roll:

So I'm not allowed to have a personal opinion on the issue? Jeez, and here I thought this was the good old US of A. But apparently nobody is allowed to think the judicial branch is wrong on this particular issue.

Just to put things in perspective...how do you feel about Roe v. Wade? You too JEDIYoda...

Well this is just another case of minority opinion screaming for attention. The country has already spoken.

So just so I understand your concept of Democracy...

As soon as an issue is decided in ANY way (popular vote, laws passed by elected politicians, court decision, etc), the people on the losing side of the decision are no longer allowed to voice their opinion or lobby for change...is that about the size of it? Wow, never has democracy sounded so fascist...I guess you guys aren't familiar with the concept of tyranny of the majority.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: zendari

Who decides what should be up for a vote and shouldn't be? You?

the constitution (interpreted by the judiciary) I would have thought

The good thing is its God Rainsford and the liberals who determines when this judiciary is right and wrong. :roll:

So I'm not allowed to have a personal opinion on the issue? Jeez, and here I thought this was the good old US of A. But apparently nobody is allowed to think the judicial branch is wrong on this particular issue.

Just to put things in perspective...how do you feel about Roe v. Wade? You too JEDIYoda...

Hmm, so why do liberals cite carefully worded confusing polls when it comes to discussing Roe vs Wade? Cuz the people don't matter and all......

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, obviously our interpretation of the constitution differes. Thats fine.

The only thing that's "fine" is that you aren't the one in charge of enforcing your piss poor understanding of the Constitution.

'll continue to stand with the majority of the country.

... with their heads firmly implanted between their collective guteal cheeks. :shocked:

I will compromise, as previously stated, but I wont turn over MY beliefs for the sake of someone else's with whom I dont agree.

Nobody's asking you to change your beliefs, no matter how unfounded they are by fact or unsupported they may be by law. That is your right.

Your right ends at the point where you try to impose your particular beliefs on others through laws that contravene their Constitutionally mandated right to to equal protection under the laws of this nation.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, obviously our interpretation of the constitution differes. Thats fine.

The only thing that's "fine" is that you aren't the one in charge of enforcing your piss poor understanding of the Constitution.

'll continue to stand with the majority of the country.

... with their heads firmly implanted between their collective guteal cheeks. :shocked:

I will compromise, as previously stated, but I wont turn over MY beliefs for the sake of someone else's with whom I dont agree.

Nobody's asking you to change your beliefs, no matter how unfounded they are by fact or unsupported they may be by law. That is your right.

Your right ends at the point where you try to impose your particular beliefs on others through laws that contravene their Constitutionally mandated right to to equal protection under the laws of this nation.

Good think the courts dont drink the koolaid and buy this crap.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: zendari
Good think the courts dont drink the koolaid and buy this crap.

Sounds like you've been drinking a bit of that vodka from that backwater two bit Stalinist POS dictatorship you came from. Since you like it so much, you'd probably be happier if you went back there.

So would we. 😀

 

[LcarsSystem]

Just ignore Zendari, if he had his way he would be just like the guy our so called angel from heaven Bush removed from power not too long ago in Iraq, although I think Zendari would be MUCH, MUCH worse.

But anyways, I know it's on comedy central but Stewart does bring up good points and here it is Video

Why is it that the conservatives always seem to want to LIMIT your freedoms instead of grant them. I guess having the power of critical thinking and understanding freedoms should be granted to ALL people within this nation is a liberal quality.

I am truly ashamed at anyone who calls themselves an american and then goes around and stabs the principles in which this country was founded upon in the back by denying any rights to others they would be willing to grant themselves. But then again, as it has been stated the majority think this way, so I am sad to say I am ashamed at what America has become these past 6 years, truly a damn disaster and one would wonder why you ever would want a power hungry authoritarian in power of the most powerful nation in the world. These people make me sick.:disgust:

 

[Bill Brasky]

What completely mystifies me is that, most likely, the lawyers arguing and the judges ruling on these cases probably lived during the civil rights movement 😕

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: Zaitsev
What completely mystifies me is that, most likely, the lawyers arguing and the judges ruling on these cases probably lived during the civil rights movement 😕

Most if not all of the people who are against gay marriage and equal rights for gays would be against equal rights for any race that is not theirs, but today that is far too unpopular of a stance, so they would never admit to it. In fact those same people will try and insist this argument is not the same, but it is.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, obviously our interpretation of the constitution differes. Thats fine.

The only thing that's "fine" is that you aren't the one in charge of enforcing your piss poor understanding of the Constitution.

And the same could be said of your opinion *shrug*

'll continue to stand with the majority of the country.

... with their heads firmly implanted between their collective guteal cheeks. :shocked:

In your opinion...

I will compromise, as previously stated, but I wont turn over MY beliefs for the sake of someone else's with whom I dont agree.

Nobody's asking you to change your beliefs, no matter how unfounded they are by fact or unsupported they may be by law. That is your right.

Well, since the Constitution doesnt specifically address marriage, we will have to leave it to the courts to interprate.

Your right ends at the point where you try to impose your particular beliefs on others through laws that contravene their Constitutionally mandated right to to equal protection under the laws of this nation.

Again the same could be said of you.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Again the same could be said of you.

Yep! You also have freedom of speech, regardless of how uninformed and bigoted it may be. The biggest difference between our views is, only one of us is trying to impose discriminatory sanctions against an entire group of people for nothing more than their choice of love interetsts.

Get over your egotistical self! :|

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Again the same could be said of you.

Yep! You also have freedom of speech, regardless of how uninformed and bigoted it may be. The biggest difference between our views is, only one of us is trying to impose discriminatory sanctions against an entire group of people for nothing more than their choice of love interetsts.

Get over your egotistical self! :|

There is nothing discriminatory.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1
And if this is your best reply to this particular comment, you failed at reading the entire post, and my stance on it 😛

No, it was just my statement of disgust and pity for your feeble comperhension skills after I posted the complete relevant text from the U.S. Constitution and referred you to my previous post about the tyranny of the majority. Since you couldn't handle such explicit text, I doubt it will help if I repost a more informed opinion from John Stuart Mill's Essay, On Liberty.

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant ? society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it ? its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries.

Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.

Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.

There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism. ? On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.7

Don't bother replying until you have something stronger than your own ill-informed opinion to support your bigotry.

Well, obviously our interpretation of the constitution differes. Thats fine. I'll continue to stand with the majority of the country. I will compromise, as previously stated, but I wont turn over MY beliefs for the sake of someone else's with whom I dont agree.

On course you won't turn over your beliefs. No bigot ever wants to. First he has to become aware that in fact he is a bigot, something he sees as bad. A bigot is a person whose self hate has been twisted so that it expresses itself on another, a gay, a black, a Catholic, etc. As he is taught via violence and put downs to hate himself he learns to direct that hate on others to escape the pain. He attacks others who have the characteristics he was told he has himself. Essentially, a bigot has to become aware that his hatred of the other is identical to his hatred of himself. He has, on the way to becoming prejudice free, to re-suffer what he was made to suffer. This can only be done by real men and women for whom truth matters more then their egos. The rest need someone out there they can feel superior to and kick to feel better. But because they need to see themselves as good and not bad they lie to themselves that their bigotry is evil. It is based in their minds on some unknown irrational good they can never explain or argue but that they just absolutely know is true. This is why 'you can tell a bigot but you can't tell him much'. His illusions are there to protect him from pain.

Know, oh bigots out there, that the pain you were made to feel that you are worthless is as big a lie as your bigotry. You were never really evil. You were violated by the same kinds of fools as you have become. But knowledge and awareness can set you free for the first time.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Again the same could be said of you.

Yep! You also have freedom of speech, regardless of how uninformed and bigoted it may be. The biggest difference between our views is, only one of us is trying to impose discriminatory sanctions against an entire group of people for nothing more than their choice of love interetsts.

Get over your egotistical self! :|

No, the only difference is how far stretched the Constitution should be stretched. Lets leave it at that. Name calling does no one any good.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
No, the only difference is how far stretched the Constitution should be stretched. Lets leave it at that. Name calling does no one any good.

When the only difference in the outcome is whether the law or the decision will arbitrarily discriminate against an entire class of people with absolutely no justification in fact or in effect on anyone else, the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution should be applied as broadly as possible.

The ONLY possible outcome of arbitrary legislated discrimination against an entire class of people is that it will lead to further discrimination against other classes of people. It that's what you favor, I hope you're a member of the next class to be persecuted. That experience may help to inform your future decisions... if you're still allowed to participate in society once those restrictions are applied.

 

[OrByte]

'equal rights' are under attack in this country.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Again the same could be said of you.

Yep! You also have freedom of speech, regardless of how uninformed and bigoted it may be. The biggest difference between our views is, only one of us is trying to impose discriminatory sanctions against an entire group of people for nothing more than their choice of love interetsts.

Get over your egotistical self! :|

No, the only difference is how far stretched the Constitution should be stretched. Lets leave it at that. Name calling does no one any good.

That's what they said in the South when people started to think about freeing the slaves. What you call stretching isn't stretching at all, it's growing.

 

[Pens1566]

Interesting viewpoint

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1
No, the only difference is how far stretched the Constitution should be stretched. Lets leave it at that. Name calling does no one any good.

When the only difference in the outcome is whether the law or the decision will arbitrarily discriminate against an entire class of people with absolutely no justification in fact or in effect on anyone else, the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution should be applied as broadly as possible.

The ONLY possible outcome of arbitrary legislated discrimination against an entire class of people is that it will lead to further discrimination against other classes of people. It that's what you favor, I hope you're a member of the next class to be persecuted. That experience may help to inform your future decisions... if you're still allowed to participate in society once those restrictions are applied.

Well, ultimately to decide this the USSC is going to have to decide whether or not homosexuality is a "class". In other words, is it a choice or not. If it IS a choice, too bad for them.