In response to:

Gay Marriage Advocates Lose By Winning

kmiller469 Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 4:21 PM
There you go, Auspex.... you are the perfect example of a liberal..."I don't want your damn rights, and I don't need your damn rights. I'm smart enough and successful enough that I can buy a lawyer to draft all the protection I need" I couldn't give you any rights if I wanted to......and neither can the blood-sucking lawyer you reference. Your right were granted by God and you were born with them. If you don't have them now, it is because you gave them away, or in the case of the current resident of the white house, you traded your rights away to be able to claim superiority for giving us a black president. LOL.....and he isn't even black!!! He is, however, a rock star - perfect for liberals.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 4:34 PM
Kmiller, I agree rights don't come from Gov. They are ours by merely being born.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that the right to marry was a fundamental right. They did so based on natural right theory and previous court rulings. The court case involved two consenting adults that were not able to marry each other.

I agree with the SC in that I believe the right to marry is a fundamental right. Do you? If so is it a right to marry who the state says you can or the consenting ADULT of your choice?

Do you believe equal protection under the law is a right? If so how can the Federal Gov treat two identical for legal purpose marriages differently under the law and call it equal?
Cambermeister Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 4:48 PM
"The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that the right to marry was a fundamental right"

...and?
Cambermeister Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 4:49 PM
"Do you believe equal protection under the law is a right? If so how can the Federal Gov
treat two identical for legal purpose marriages differently under the law and call it equal?"

Because the Claus doesn't mention 'couples' Tinsldr2. But then again you knew that.


Beethovens10th Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 4:52 PM
So the SC, in one fell swoop, negated all laws prohibiting incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages nationwide?

I must have missed that part in my history book. But maybe you have the new, revised version.
Cambermeister Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 4:58 PM
Beethovens10th, Tinsldr2 has his own copy that indicates his son should be able to 'marry' whatever and Equal Protection applies to his son and his whatever but they can't gain rights unless the son/whatever agree to adopt straight terms.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 4:59 PM
Beethoven I must have missed where I said anything like that. Care to try and answer my post? Or is your only defense a Strawman argument about polygamy?

Cambermeister Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 5:06 PM
Beethovens10th destroyed your post Tinsldr2. You said;

"The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that the right to marry was a fundamental right"

As if that meant something different than what it says.

Beethovens10th Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 5:07 PM
Here you go:

"I agree with the SC in that I believe the right to marry is a fundamental right. Do you? If so is it a right to marry who the state says you can or the consenting ADULT of your choice?"

Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 5:15 PM
Ok beethoven so are you saying that you agree it is a fundamental right but the right does not extend so far as choosing the Consenting adult you wish to marry?

Beethovens10th Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 5:37 PM
Marriage, as it is known, is already defined.

Either you DO have the right to "marry the consenting adult of your choice" or you do not.

I suspect that you really do not.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 19, 2013 5:48 PM
Ok well I think YOU DO. I base that on a study of Natural Law. We will see when the Supreme Court rules on the question.

Of course the more immediate cases revolve around DOMA and you completely ignore the equal protection part that is in my post above.

Homosexual activists achieved historic gains in the November 2012 election in the states of Washington, Maine and Maryland. These three notoriously liberal states passed laws extending marriage benefits to homosexual relationships by four to six percentage points. But will these legal victories ultimately deny them the sweeping Supreme Court decision they long for?

Judge Robert Jones of a federal court in Nevada has laid the groundwork for such a conclusion. In his ruling on a lawsuit which sought to overturn Nevada’s ban on gay marriage, Jones wrote that the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) lobby’s success in advancing its...