Utah declares gay marriage bans unconstitutional

[dmcowen674]

Two in two days. Nice. I'm hoping this will prompt the Supreme Court to rule on the issue in 2014. They can't kick it down to lower courts forever.

How many states allow Gay marriage now?

More than half by now?

What will Republicans discriminate against once this non-issue is put to bed for good?

 

[FelixDeCat]

Why not give us a few pictures of you protesting the right for people who love each other to get married.. maybe you will even make it into the textbooks so future generations can laugh at you!

People like you are born over and over again.

Whether it is slavery, desegregation, women's right to vote, interracial marriage, or gay marriage. There will always be some new group for bigots to hate.

As I said before you are a confused little man. Opposing gay marriage is not akin to supporting slavery, segregation, suffrage, etc. Get off your soap box before you slip and fall.

"OMG YOU wont let men marry men and women marry women, you hater person you!!! !1111!!"

Goodness gracious. :whiste:

 

[xj0hnx]

As I said before you are a confused little man. Opposing gay marriage is not akin to supporting slavery, segregation, suffrage, etc. Get off your soap box before you slip and fall.

"OMG YOU wont let men marry men and women marry women, you hater person you!!! !1111!!"

Goodness gracious. :whiste:

Actually, yes, it is. While it isn't quite on the same level, it is still a bigot trying to impose his will on other people. Religious people make me sick.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Actually, yes, it is. While it isn't quite on the same level, it is still a bigot trying to impose his will on other people. Religious people make me sick.

Actually, no, its not, and you admitted it wasn't. It may make you unhappy that I dont support gay marriage, but thats about it. If you feel that way than you are more than welcome to. Although its ironic that it does not make me unhappy that you support it.

Oh well. ^_^

 

[xj0hnx]

Actually, no, its not, and you admitted it wasn't. It may make you unhappy that I dont support gay marriage, but thats about it. If you feel that way than you are more than welcome to. Although its ironic that it does not make me unhappy that you support it.

Oh well. ^_^

No, I said it isn't as extreme, but it most certainly is the same thing, bigots forcing their will on other's they find morally inferior. As the resident loony leftist say, you will be laughed at for being on the wrong side of history.

 

[shadow9d9]

As I said before you are a confused little man. Opposing gay marriage is not akin to supporting slavery, segregation, suffrage, etc. Get off your soap box before you slip and fall.

"OMG YOU wont let men marry men and women marry women, you hater person you!!! !1111!!"

Goodness gracious. :whiste:

It absolutely is. You will be laughed at along with all the others. People are so predictable. They always need something to hate and fear. Pretty pathetic.

Could we have that picture so we could use you to laugh at?

That is you.

 

[Fern]

SIAP, but I don't want to read all through this long thread.

But, the thread title ("Utah declares gay marriage bans unconstitutional") is inaccurate. Utah declared nothing of the sort. It was a federal judge who made that declaration. I've heard Utah still takes the opposite position and is pursuing it in court.

Fern

 

[woolfe9998]

SIAP, but I don't want to read all through this long thread.

But, the thread title ("Utah declares gay marriage bans unconstitutional") is inaccurate. Utah declared nothing of the sort. It was a federal judge who made that declaration. I've heard Utah still takes the opposite position and is pursuing it in court.

Fern

That's right. Utah is the deepest red state in the entire country. No chance the state of Utah supports gay marriage.

 

[thraashman]

That's right. Utah is the deepest red state in the entire country. No chance the state of Utah supports gay marriage.

Yeah, red states and equal rights almost never line up.

 

[sportage]

How many states allow Gay marriage now?

More than half by now?

What will Republicans discriminate against once this non-issue is put to bed for good?

Typically when more than half of the states pass law or grant something, it's time the federal government legalize it nation wide, with over riding state law.
Wasn't that basically how it worked with civil rights? Voting rights?
If more than half the nation now recognizes this, then it becomes too messy to allow a few states not to. With the society as mobile as we are, it doesn't make sense to marry in Utah and move to say Tennessee where your marriage is not recognized.
It's now time for this to be legal and settled law nation wide.
The issue has surpassed the half way mark.
LBJ could have gotten this done.

 

[sportage]

Every day I check the Utah newspaper

http://www.sltrib.com

to read in on the latest Utah SS marriage news.
And its obvious there is a real meltdown going on in Utah.
Knee slapping hilarious at that.
While the state officials try looking under every rock for some kind of fine print to stop SS marriage, the effort is outweighed by more and more pro-SS marriage news every day.
I.e. record breaking applications for SS license. In the hundreds. Incredible.
And now, news that state employee SS married partners can get Utah state benefits.
OH THE HUMANITY !!!! 😀

It is really worth a daily peek into the Utah news papers and witness what appears to be the flock of bigoted headless chickens running around trying something, anything, to stop this SS marriage thing dead in its tracks.
Pull up a seat, sit back, and click to watch the circus unfold. 😀

 

[Retro Rob]

Yeah, red states and equal rights almost never line up.

I've personally never understood the need for religion to get involved with issues of the State anyway, and I don't think blatant bigotry is the reason, and I also think its [bigotry] an oversimplification of the issue. Maybe believers and non-believers need to understand each other better instead of tossing around lazy-brained labels. I think people on the left are much more guilty of simply trying to label someone.

I think that religion simply believes it has a personal obligation to legislate its morality....this goes back probably as far as the Roman Empire, in my opinion. This is not about bigotry, or "supporting slavery", as some small-minded intolerant people say -- this is likely about them feeling as if they're ordained and commanded by God to reform society and restore a sense of morality in the world.

Most religious people I've personally talked to feel this way...that they need to put God back into, what they see as a "Godless world". These people are sincere, and honestly think they should use whatever means necessary to restore God into society.

This is an unbalanced view, in my opinion, but its the reason why I think "red states" fight back against "equal rights".

 

[sportage]

Activist judge ???

 

[shadow9d9]

I've personally never understood the need for religion to get involved with issues of the State anyway, and I don't think blatant bigotry is the reason, and I also think its [bigotry] an oversimplification of the issue. Maybe believers and non-believers need to understand each other better instead of tossing around lazy-brained labels. I think people on the left are much more guilty of simply trying to label someone.

I think that religion simply believes it has a personal obligation to legislate its morality....this goes back probably as far as the Roman Empire, in my opinion. This is not about bigotry, or "supporting slavery", as some small-minded intolerant people say -- this is likely about them feeling as if they're ordained and commanded by God to reform society and restore a sense of morality in the world.

Most religious people I've personally talked to feel this way...that they need to put God back into, what they see as a "Godless world". These people are sincere, and honestly think they should use whatever means necessary to restore God into society.

This is an unbalanced view, in my opinion, but its the reason why I think "red states" fight back against "equal rights".

It is very scary when people think that their own person magic man commands them to do something based on what a bunch of uneducated people 2000 years ago wrote in a book that's been translated and retranslated 1000 times.

 

[ThinClient]

As I said before you are a confused little man. Opposing gay marriage is not akin to supporting slavery, segregation, suffrage, etc. Get off your soap box before you slip and fall.

"OMG YOU wont let men marry men and women marry women, you hater person you!!! !1111!!"

Goodness gracious. :whiste:

Actually, it is very much a hate-mongering bigotry to oppose gay marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

It is very scary when people think that their own person magic man commands them to do something based on what a bunch of uneducated people 2000 years ago wrote in a book that's been translated and retranslated 1000 times.

No more scary than a bunch of liberals deciding to rewrite the purpose of a 2000+ year old institution, while pretending they aren't rewriting the purpose of it (while also pretending that gay people can violate basic biology), just to keep a few of their gay friends from feeling butt-hurt.

 

[Retro Rob]

It is very scary when people think that their own person magic man commands them to do something based on what a bunch of uneducated people 2000 years ago wrote in a book that's been translated and retranslated 1000 times.

You must mean "personal magic man", and the simple fact that you'd rather criticize the argument instead of addressing the substance of what I wrote lends credence to my point about left-leaning simpletons opting to simply label something, rather than do the real mental work of understanding their opposition.

I am not surprised..

 

[nehalem256]

Actually, it is very much a hate-mongering bigotry to oppose gay marriage.

No it isn't. And the fact that liberals have to keep resorting to saying that over and over shows the utter lack of intellectual thought liberals have on marriage.

 

[ThinClient]

No more scary than a bunch of liberals deciding to rewrite the purpose of a 2000+ year old institution, while pretending they aren't rewriting the purpose of it (while also pretending that gay people can violate basic biology), just to keep a few of their gay friends from feeling butt-hurt.

When the institution is hate-mongeringly bigoted and flawed, rewriting it is necessary. It's a shame that humans are so hateful that it took two millennium to pull our heads out of our asses about it.

 

[ThinClient]

No it isn't. And the fact that liberals have to keep resorting to saying that over and over shows the utter lack of intellectual thought liberals have on marriage.

Yes it is. And the fact that religiotards and republitards have to keep throwing the term "liberal" around as if partisanship is the reason behind the split instead of religiousity as the actual cause over and over shows the utter lack of intellectual thought that religious and republicans have on marriage.

HATE HATE HATE! That's the message of the republicans and the religious.

 

[sportage]

No more scary than a bunch of liberals deciding to rewrite the purpose of a 2000+ year old institution, while pretending they aren't rewriting the purpose of it (while also pretending that gay people can violate basic biology), just to keep a few of their gay friends from feeling butt-hurt.

Oh, is that suppose to be a humorous pun?

Face it, one thing every single human on this earth has in common with each other is that distasteful feeling when stereotyped. Its ironic that even bigots dislike stereotyped into the category of bigot. Why can't same sex couples just submit into a stereotype, they ask.
Or some say, "I'm not a bigot, but... yada yada yada".
Same sex couples should never accept the category of second classed citizen.
And bigots sure dislike being called a bigot.
You would think people might realize this is a two way road.
And no one enjoys forced down that road.

 

[Retro Rob]

Oh, is that suppose to be a humorous pun?

Face it, one thing every single human on this earth has in common with each other is that distasteful feeling when stereotyped. Its ironic that even bigots dislike stereotyped into the category of bigot. Why can't same sex couples just submit into a stereotype, they ask.
Or some say, "I'm not a bigot, but... yada yada yada".
Same sex couples should never accept the category of second classed citizen.
And bigots sure dislike being called a bigot.
You would think people might realize this is a two way road.
And no one enjoys forced down that road.

So if I call you a "savage" and you dislike that, that means you're a savage?

Savages dislike being called a savage.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes it is. And the fact that religiotards and republitards have to keep throwing the term "liberal" around as if partisanship is the reason behind the split instead of religiousity as the actual cause over and over shows the utter lack of intellectual thought that religious and republicans have on marriage.

HATE HATE HATE! That's the message of the republicans and the religious.

Wrong. Try taking a look at different cultures such as China and Japan. Obviously since they are not "Christian Theocracy" they must recognize same-sex relationships as marriages right? :hmm:

The divide is between conservatives who believe marriage has a civilizational purpose and liberals who see it as nothing more that a benefits granting circlejerk for relationships they like.

When the institution is hate-mongeringly bigoted and flawed, rewriting it is necessary. It's a shame that humans are so hateful that it took two millennium to pull our heads out of our asses about it.

Recognizing fundamentally different relationships as different is not "hate-mongering bigotry".

Try again.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Wrong. Try taking a look at different cultures such as China and Japan. Obviously since they are not "Christian Theocracy" they must recognize same-sex relationships as marriages right? :hmm:

The divide is between conservatives who believe marriage has a civilizational purpose and liberals who see it as nothing more that a benefits granting circlejerk for relationships they like.



Recognizing fundamentally different relationships as different is not "hate-mongering bigotry".

Try again.

Still waiting for an answer:

Do you believe that a heterosexual couple who can not have children or who do not want children should be legally allowed to marry?

 

[Specop 007]

Have to admit, theres a bit of humor in the fact that a state founded on the idea that marriage isnt between one man and one woman has to have a court tell them marriage isnt defined as being one man one woman. Odd that.