jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (58 posts)

Taking Back Sam Sex Marriage Right

  1. ThompsonPen profile image84
    ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago

    Just after Same-Sex marriage was legalized in California - It's been immediately asked to be "intervened by the court". Should it be? After all, isn't that how a democracy works?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Should the majority in a small section of the country wish to violate the constitution or even the laws of that area, no that's not how democracy works.  When you want to enact a new law it MUST conform to all existing laws as well.

      1. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Really?
        Eh........that's exactly how the pro-gay movement gained ground in the first place---the majority in a small section got lawyers who pushed the Courts to bypass all the existing laws!   LOL.

        Yep, that IS how democracy works sometimes, fraudulently.    And sometimes even legally,  because America isn't supposed to be just a democracy,  because even if the majority of people do something, that doesn't mean it's right.   America's a "democratic" Republic, and it had basic fundamentals upon which "democracy" was then to proceed.     Now, the basics have been done away with by the liberal movement, and our Supreme Court is condoning that because the Court's been infiltrated by liberals with their own agenda.    The Supreme Court needs to be disbanded and begun over from scratch,  and given term limits.    It allowed a jump from compassion and freedom for all....to baby-killing in one fell swoop, just because a couple of ambitious lawyers wanted to make a name for themselves.   Same with gay "rights"-----America jumped from giving equal freedom to everyone......to making it legal to discriminate against traditional marriage and conservatives everywhere.     Our legal system is in the hands of fools who call right wrong and wrong right.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Until a few years ago, I'd never seen nor heard of a law delineating marriage to one man and one woman.

          As far as the supreme court (or any other) discriminating against everyone - well, I guess that depends on if that everyone requires discrimination against a select view with a different outlook.  The constitution is mostly about protecting the minority, just as it should be.  It is far too easy for the many to run right over the few.

        2. Paul Wingert profile image79
          Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Awwww the bigots got shot down by the Supreme Court and they filed a motion to stop gay marriages in CA which also got shot down. What is a bigot to do? Poor idiots.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Precisely tongue

            It will be fun to see them fade into oblivion.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image90
              Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Oblivion is a state called Utah.
              Glad to have all that Mormon "morality" and money out of our state.
              smile

              1. profile image0
                mbuggiehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I'm still trying to figure out exactly what "sam" sex marriage is...wink

                1. ThompsonPen profile image84
                  ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  yeah...that was my typo I didn't catch for a couple of days smile

                2. Zelkiiro profile image86
                  Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Sam is the third gender. You didn't think it was mere coincidence that they took on the appearance of both men AND women, did you?

                  1. profile image0
                    mbuggiehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Right..."Sam" as gender-neutral (as in Samuel or Samantha)...wink

                3. Mighty Mom profile image90
                  Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I think it's a codeword of some sort.
                  lol

        3. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So...if the Supreme Court had decided 5 to 4 to maintain the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and uphold Proposition 8 would you be demanding that the court be "disbanded"---though I have NO idea how that would be done legally or constitutionally AND would you demanding an amendment to the US Constitution to impose term limits on the court's justices?

          1. profile image0
            Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Heck no, because they would be in the right.
            Abortion and forcing unseemly laws into our system aren't just political matters that are subject to yes or no depending on which political Party you're in.    They're subject to NO.    People haven't forgotten what's right and what's wrong;  the Right has  just been bullied for so long, and the opposing position tolerated for so long, and the Left has been so forceful and so gleeful at winning against what's right,  that none of them on either side have the guts to just say NO.

        4. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So, for the democratic republic that is America to work, it must be dominated by conservatives only.

          If that same democratic republic embraces liberal values---the very same values that were the core of The Enlightenment which informed the American revolutionary generation and the Founders who wrote the US Constitution, then it (that Constitution, the Supreme Court which it creates, etc.) is to be discarded and the Court which protects it "disbanded".

          In other words, in your America there is extreme right-wing conservatism only and no space for political discussion and no multiple political voices or opinions.

          In your America only the right-wing conservatism of Christianity is legitimate and tolerable.

          Fascinating.

          1. profile image0
            mbuggiehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And please explain exactly how expanding marriage to gay and lesbian people constitutes discrimination against conservatives.

            In the states where same-sex marriage is legal, if I understand correctly, marriage between men and women---even self-described conservatives is still legal. There are no laws on the books, for example, in Maine or New York or Iowa or California which discriminate against those seeking to enter into a traditional marriage.

    2. Mitch Alan profile image86
      Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The real questions remain. 1. Where in the Constitution does the FEDERAL government receive power to be involved with marriage at all?
      2. Why is the government, at any level involved with marriage, as it shouldn't be a construct of government or have any legal bearing regardless of gender.

  2. Onusonus profile image88
    Onusonusposted 4 years ago

    Only 3.6 percent of Americans identify themselves as Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual according to 2011 research by the Williams Institute at UCLA. Why are liberals so interested in their desire to redefine marriage?

    1. Zelkiiro profile image86
      Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If this conversation took place 50 years ago...

      "Only 11% of the United States is made up of African-Americans. Why are liberals so interested in their desire to redefine 'human'?"

      1. Onusonus profile image88
        Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Actually if it were fifty years ago we would be asking that question to conservatives, definitely not liberals.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
          Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You seem to be under the mistaken idea that all liberals are Democrats and all Republicans are conservative. You could hardly have called Dixiecrats liberals.

          1. Onusonus profile image88
            Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sure they were. Liberal Democrats invented segregation, slavery, White supremacy etc. That is very consistent with the history of liberalism in America.

            I wonder how black people feel about having same sex marriage constantly compared to slavery, and segregation by liberals as though there is any real comparison. Ironically the same group who wanted blacks to be slaves now acts as though some other group invented the KKK.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              AHAHAHAHA nope.

              Almost all those things, they come from the south, now tell me who do southerners vote for?
              The KKK was an organization of ex confederate veterans, find me a single pro confederacy democrat voter.
              Oh and as the Ninth Circuit court and the Supreme court have confirmed same sex marriage and segregation were the same in that they both violated the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment. Legally and logically they are the same, one group being denied equal rights under the law. 

              Your comment is just ridiculous tongue

              1. Onusonus profile image88
                Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Ah so you are laboring under the delusion that the parties switched sides at some point. But can you show me a single bill on the floor put forward by conservatives that upholds Jim Crow, denial of womens suffrage, or any other liberal policy that denies person hood? Nope? Didn't think so.
                I just see liberals doing what they have always done, Ignoring or loop holing the US Constitution to appease their mob like constituents.

                The same is with the gay marriage issue. If they really were concerned about equal rights why isn't polygamy on the table? Or bestiality? It's because the only real goal of liberals is to undermine the first amendment of the constitution and usurp power over the people.

                1. ThompsonPen profile image84
                  ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I see nothing wrong with polygamy as long as every one in the marriage is aware, but that's between the people involved. Beastiality is between a human and an animal that cannot give consent. People seem to think that same sex marriage is on the same page as mixed species. Kind of sounds like they're saying that same sex couples are animals to me.
                  Same sex marriage is between two consenting adults, what should it matter that they love each other?
                  "It's because the only real goal of liberals is to undermine the first amendment of the constitution and usurp power over the people." - do you follow politics at all?

                2. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Completely change the topic from the subject you raised tongue

                  It's a simple matter of voter blocks, the south has always been the conservative, racist and homophobic center of America, I don't see that changing for some time, you can trace the history of which party is the positive and progressive one simply by who controls the south.

                  As for polygamy just as with the comment beneath yours I am fully in support of legalization, bestiality as again the comment below correctly notes, is not relevant because of the issue of consent.

                  1. Onusonus profile image88
                    Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Laughable! The Liberals are the party of voter suppression. They are the party of eugenics, they've killed more black babies in the twentieth century than they did when they invented the KKK. Their rhetoric is the same, they simply switched from being racist, to being race baiters. Something the conservative party has never touched on. They just switch tactics in order to get a rise out of what ever mob they can appeal to. They own all the ghettos, like Detroit, Chicago, D.C., New York City, and make them the most dangerous places in the world, and call them nice and safe gun free zones.
                    Nice try as usual but the conservatives couldn't hold a candle to the racism of the progressive. wink

            2. profile image0
              mbuggiehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And here I thought segregation and slavery dated to "Biblical" times; that the Bible was replete with stories of race-, religion-, and ethnicity-based segregation and slavery.

              Wow...it was all the Democrats and liberals after all.

              1. Onusonus profile image88
                Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The Liberals actually tried to use the Bible to justify the slave trade. The wrench in your proposition however, is that the conservatives won the argument against it through pulpit preaching.
                You see they wanted to conserve the proposition that all men are created equal, and preserve the founding ideas of Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Something that liberals fail to realize to date as they continually attempt to deny life to the unborn, promote dependency on the government over liberty, and demand redistribution of wealth over pursuing happiness.

                1. Zelkiiro profile image86
                  Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh yes, the party that has always championed freedom and equality for everyone (a.k.a. the liberal progressives) is the party that sought out to oppress the very groups they held up. Because that totally makes sense.

                  Couldn't possibly be the party that has always stood for corporate supremacy and unmitigated capitalism at any cost (a.k.a. the plutocratic conservatives). That would just be silly.

                  1. Onusonus profile image88
                    Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I suppose you don't recall In the 1950s and ’60s, when Liberal Democrats were running segregationists for vice president, slapping Orval Faubus and Bull Conner on the back and praising George Wallace voters for their “integrity.”

                    But the moment the real civil rights struggle was over, liberals decided to become black America’s most self-important defenders. they drove the entire country crazy with their endless battles against imaginary racists, to make up for their having been AWOL during the real fight over civil rights. And it goes on and on to this day. You will never see anything so brave as a liberal fighting nonexistent enemies.

                2. profile image0
                  mbuggiehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Are you aware of the 19th century Abolition Movement and its liberal/progressive and New England and New York based leadership---most of whom embraced multiple liberal movements including women's rights and liberal educational reform?

                  Are you aware of the fact that many of the leading abolitionists---from New England and New York were also subscribers some of the most liberal movements in American history which included the Transcendental Movement which discarded Christianity for Unitarianism?

                  That said, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as defined today in 2013 have no meaning in the 19th century. Political discussions and debates were not made, in the 19th century, in terms of right and left or liberal and conservative.

                  Discussions and debates were made, rather, in terms of moral and immoral, as Christian and un-Christian, as Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian---as federalist or anti-federalist.

                  Slavery was debated as a matter of morality, Christian practice, states' rights (anti-federalism).

                  1. Onusonus profile image88
                    Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The abolition movement rose out of the conservative Republican party. Abraham Lincoln’s firm and unyielding opposition to slavery grew out of his dedication to the principles of our Founding Fathers, principles which have been under assault by the Left for decades. The Left seeks to reinterpret Lincoln as the father of the centralized administrative state that was actually created by early Progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Croly, and John Dewey.

                    Those who actually study Lincoln’s thoughts and speeches know that, in his words, he “never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.” He loved and admired “the sentiments of those old-time men,” our Founding Fathers. He was dedicated to their principles – equal rights under the law, economic liberty, and a fidelity to the Constitution, our fundamental law.

                    This is the embodiment of conservatism in America and has changed very little over the years. It is the progressive sentiment that flips and flops around from one group to another. They are the embodiment of the mob. They liberally interpreted the founding documents when allowing a man to be a slave, and they liberally interpret the same words when denying life to the unborn. They liberally interpreted equal protection under the law then just as they do now when they require public funding for special interest groups. They used the KKK, police dogs, fire hoses, and angry mobs to bully people then and today they use other bullies like the weathermen, the Black panthers, and eco-terrorists, to get their way today,

    2. ThompsonPen profile image84
      ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If it's such a minuscule percentage,t hen what effect does it have for them to be included in a marriage law? In fact, why does marriage have any legal relevance?

      1. Onusonus profile image88
        Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Good question, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all whatsoever.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Do you include the legal ramifications of marriage - inheritance, next-of-kin, divorce rights, child custody and care, taxes etc.?

  3. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    Or people just have different ideas about what is right and wrong, or whether they should be able to force people to do as they wish rather than act according to their own beliefs.

  4. profile image0
    Beth37posted 4 years ago

    Who is Sam and why are we talking about his sex life?

    1. bBerean profile image60
      bBereanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We don't even know if Sam is a boy or a girl.  (Sam may not know either).

      1. profile image0
        Beth37posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sam could be a boy and a girl, so... maybe this thread wasn't meant to be controversial at all.

        1. ThompsonPen profile image84
          ThompsonPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It was in fact one huge misinterpretation of a thread! I always read about Sam and his Green Eggs and Ham, I thought maybe we should know more about him, since the world is so intrigued by his diet choices

          1. profile image0
            Beth37posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Right? I think everyone's going to be very embarrassed when they go back and read the title. I can already hear the collective face palm smack.

 
working