No, they don't. When it comes to individual rights, a majority cannot force a minority to abandon their essential rights, just as people don't get to vote a special cuisine out, or vote a special religion out. Individual rights of minorities cannot be infringed upon by the majority.

And I'm a lost cause to be taken advantage of by you. Good for me.

The whole issue is whether they really have these so-called "rights." You may find this hard to believe but them having these "rights" is NOT a foregone conclusion, no matter how much you think so. There's nothing in the Constitution to support such a claim and so it's up to each state to decide for itself. Just like the abortion matter should have been. The issue should be left up to the people. Not to activist judges who go beyond the role and twist the Constitution in order to make laws. Especially when it's an issue about gay marriage and the judge is gay. This is the problem with you liberals. You attribute to yourselves or others certain "rights," and anyone who disagrees with you is denying you these "rights;" and since public opinion is often against you, you ram your agenda through the courts.

If you get to marry the way you want, they get to marry the way they want. It might not be a foregone conclusion for you yet, but it's an apparent infringement of homosexual individual rights. And courts provide checks and balances on tyranny of the majority. They are not by any means beyond their roles. It's their role to stand up to tyrannical majorities and uphold the right of minorities.

Ivy did you basically ignore my last post on this thread? I thought it brought up a fair point. You can't go too extreme in any direction.

All you're doing is stating the way you wish it would be. Not the way it actually is.

I've brought up before how, over a century ago, the country would not allow polygamy. Way back then, it decided what it considered marriage and what it didn't; despite the fact that the practice of it was part of the religious beliefs of some people, which IS actually a Constitutional right.

Nobody, including yourself, had a problem with that. But now, when it comes to gays, suddenly we should change the definition of marriage because they are being denied their "rights." What a crock. You couldn't care less about these so called "rights." Just about pushing your sick, liberal, godless agenda.

I saw it but I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Being against gay marriage certainly isn't extreme. Changing the definition, which as been in place for centuries, is.

The problem with you, is that you don't read what I said. Indeed why not polygamy? Why not five women, two men? I don't have a problem with polygamy.

In fact you open a thread about polygamy, albeit not strictly the religious type that involves a man and many women, the type that let any number of consenting adults getting married. I promise I debate that issue with any naysayer till I've any typing left in me.

So why don't you challenge that injustice and bring that up to a judge of your choice? You could in fact go all the way to the supreme court and might get your way yet. I've not seen a logical argument as to why not polygamy indeed.

My basic point is that people used religion and god to commit atrocities since man invented it. You can't deny that. However extreme feminism and liberalism is also a bad thing. I see a balance here. If you push an agenda to the point where it affects the balance of the lives that we live it's not a good thing.

That's why I cannot stand the democratic machine of my home state, Elizabeth warren and Hollywood actors. But I also dislike evangelicals and conservative Christians who feel the need to ram their views down everyone's throat and it's that extreme faction of america that gives political conservatives and fiscal conservatives a bad name.

Even though they actually did have Constitutional protection on the issue, the polygamists (well most of them anyway) submitted to the will of the nation on the issue. Like gays, who don't have Constitutional protection on the issue, should now. Or at least be content to leave it up to the states.



I agree with everything you said. Of course, on the gay marriage issue, you'll notice only one side is trying to ram their views down everyone's throat via the courts. Though very happy with DOMA, most on the other side would be fine with leaving it up to each state.

No one should give up their essential rights to the tyranny of majority. Just because some did in the past, you can't expect anyone doing it now.

In a way I understand what you are saying Ivy. We had a title- which was Cival Union-
"Marriage in the United States is a civil union.

But a civil union, as it has come to be called, is not marriage, not good enough for some. We need to push for everything. Fine, stop calling it GAY marrige, just call it the right to BE Married then!

In so many way people or groups need to add sub titles to things trying to make it special it seems.

Black Miss America, No Miss America,First Black President,No the President- Gay male or Gay felmale Ect.

I really don't mean to be disrespectful or offensive, but is there at least something in this world that is considered "bad" and "immoral", apart from things that directly involve physical harm to others, like rape and murder? What will happen if people start thinking that "personal freedom" is more important than "not harming others"?

Yes, things that are cause of mental harm toward others are bad and immoral as well. Like bullying and name calling. It doesn't cause physical harm, but it scars psyche.

What happens if people decided "personal freedoms" are more important than "harming others?" Obviously anarchy. Destruction of society. But then who advocated that personal freedoms are more important even when they harm others? Maybe gun lovers? I'm not one.

Run and tell that, Mr. Mayor!

+1

But both extremes, left and right, "ram their views down everyone's throat." They're opposite sides of the same repugnant coin.

Who's worse, Glen Beck or Keith Olbermann? They're both vile scumbags who make a living by fanning extreme flames. And they both laugh all the way to the fucking bank. And their followers don't even realize that they're being used.

Who's worse, the far left environmental terrorist who firebombs a construction site to save a few bunnies, yet kills a few humans in the process, or the far right evangelical who firebombs an abortion clinic and kills a few doctors and nurses in the process?

They're both vile, hateful scumbags.

Who's worse, the medieval Christians who killed countless non-believers during the Crusades, or the present day extreme Muslims who can't wait for every Jew and every American to be dead, all in the name of banging some virgins in never never land?

Scumbags all.

Opposite sides of the same ugly coin. Every single extreme.

You don't have to be religious to be against gay marriages. Marriage has always been between males and females, it transcends all religions, culture, and politics. Gay marriage is an issue that just popped up a decade or two ago, when the people who want to wreck nations got bored and had to think up some more sick crap to piss off the majority of good people. It is just another notch in their belt, just like the mass amounts of illegal immigration. A few illegal immigrants never ruffled anyones feathers, until an entire country was allowed to immigrate illegally at will.

It reminds me of the brain dead morons who blame guns when some kid goes on a shooting spree. They need to be blaming the sick society that produced these sick kids, but mass consumerist morons with their ten second attention spans need some easy reason.

Gerry that's way too simplistic and without fact. Just saying

I have ZERO sympathy for the right-wing's current problems with the fundamentalists.

They had no problems being with those crazy assholes for decades because of the endless millions of dollars they raised for campaigns and votes recruited/cultured. Now they're a fucking liability, and they're stuck on the same boat with them. They won't let that issue go, and you need their money/votes so what will they do going forward? How will they take that now old and lame former prized stallion out back and Lenny/OF MICE & MEN it?

Off-topic but you all know Pete Wilson? Former Governor/Senator for California, recently said if his Republican Party found a way to let the party base fringe scuttle the upcoming Immigration Reform bill, he could actually envision a future where the GOP in national elections could only draw single-digit % Latino support like they do currently with black voters.

I have trouble seeing that same future. Then again, the Whigs never thought they would go extinct either.

Delaware becomes eleventh state to approve same-sex marriage

(CNN) – Delaware became the eleventh state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage Tuesday after the State Senate approved the measure and the state's governor signed it into law.

Gov. Jack Markell, a Democrat, signed the bill following a 12-9 vote in the State Senate passing the measure. The State House approved the bill in April.

You are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to your "facts." It is a FACT that ritualized same sex marriages existed in ancient history. They were outlawed in the fourth century AFTER Christ by the Church.

There is no basis in FACT for your assertion that the concept was invented by a few people who want to wreck nations," whatever that means.

Finally there is no link between Gay marriage and immigration. And never in history has an entire nation immigrated from one country to another, as you state. There is one country entirely made up of immigrants, however...its called The United States of America.

Minnesota is going for the hat trick tomorrow.

Oh no Kly! After Rhode Island approved gay marriage I told my wife that I didn't think we would make it to our 40th in August. Afterall, since gay marriage is destroying our marriage, adding two states since Rhode Island would absolutely doom us.

Boy, that joke is getting kind of old, don't you think-

Why don't you do something nice and bring her some flower for a change....and if you like.....stop down to the Funeral Home and I will leave some by the back door for you! It will our little secret

Who had "ritualized same sex marriages?" I sure hope you're not trying to argue Christians ever had such a thing.

Ivy I think he means "ancient" cultures, ones that existed long before Jesus Christ

Well, if we want to look back, we can go back to the beginning and see the divinely set pattern of Adam and Eve. Whatever may have come in some cultures afterward isn't a justification for legalized gay marriage today.

Well there we run into a problem as well. All depends of you believe the earth is 6000 years old as opposed to 2.5 billion. I personally don't believe that Adam and eve were the beginning nor do I believe that they even existed. To me they represent metaphors that early Christians wanted to convey. Evidence suggests human civilization (Egyptians, mesopotamians, Indus valley, china) existed thousands of years before the bible says the world began.

Then again that's not what this thread is about. Excuse me for getting off topic

For the record, despite the misunderstandings of many Christians about their own Bible, or the secular crowd who understands it even less, the original Hebrew word for "day" meant a "season" or "period of time." Not necessarily a literal 24 hours. So, to use that assumption as a reason to waive off the Bible doesn't really hold water.

And, once again, some ancient civilizations practicing gay marriage is hardly an argument to do the same today. Some ancient civilizations also practiced crucifixion.

You better bring some more proof then wikipedia propaganda. Gay marriage has always been seen as a freak show, to think it is just Christians against it is a misrepresentation of reality. Mass illegal immigration and gay marriages all have the same goal in mind, to alienate people and destroy society. The United States of America, or no country in history for that matter has allowed 20-40 million people to illegally immigrate into their country in a couple of decades.