A mistake was made...gay marriage in Utah

That would be the only possible clause, Timmy. And it seems to me the EP clause would tend to support allowing gays to marry, not prevent it. Gay marriage is simply not unconstitutional. Sorry, JD.

Why is it so hard for Thumpers to see that they are no different than the Taliban--live my way or else. Originally Posted by Old-T

You're an idiot. Please cite a "thumper" in the US that is publicly executing with the govts consent homosexuals for homosexual acts like they are in Muslim countries like Afghanistan and Iran. You can't

Whatever is between JD and me is between JD and me....and you ought to butt the fuck out. If you're with him on discrimination against gays, just say so....who gives a shit? You're just another idiot in a long line.

And, you're opinion regarding COG is interesting. COG and I have gone at it hammer and tong and disagreed on almost every single fucking thing (edit...see below)....long before you ever appeared here. But, I respect his opinion. He says some things that make a lot of sense....even if I rarely admit it. It's the Libertarian thing. Every once in a while they come up with something I can agree with. Originally Posted by timpage

I think I made the case that there is NO discrimination of gays over marriage. They can get married just like anyone else according the laws that everyone else has to follow. Now if you want to admit that they want special rights then be man enough (you're not a eunuch are you?) to admit it.

As for the other; I think I pointed out that nothing in the Constitution remotely applies to the concept of marriage or love...so why is a federal judge getting involved? FYI, the judge is an Obama appointee from 2011 (you know, after he evolved on the subject of gay marriage) Robert Shelby.

Old T is constantly throwing down the Taliban thing (and recently the Nazi thing) to sustain his arguments. He likes to compare the Tea Party and conservatives to the afore mentioned groups. However, he can not cite one instance where either the Tea Party (not really concerned with social issues) or conservatives have punished someone because of their stand on gay marriage or homosexuality. The Taliban and the Nazis are both famous for enforcing their beliefs on the general population. The conservatives express their opinion that something is wrong and that is as far as it goes. Even the Mathew Sheppard murder turned out to be a crime of passion committed by two gay men on another gay man. Can you show me a crime (I'll give you the last twenty years) where groups of flaming heterosexuals attacked homosexuals in the streets?

What part of the Constitution addresses marriage?

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

tttto uuuu 2


wwwwhat dddddoooooes ttttthhhe llllaaaw sssssaay aaaaabbbbbout mmmmaaaarriage? maaaan and wwwwwoman .... doooon't lllliiiikkkke chhhhannnnnggge itttt

. However, he can not cite one instance where either the Tea Party (not really concerned with social issues) or conservatives have punished someone because of their stand on gay marriage or homosexuality. The Taliban and the Nazis are both famous for enforcing their beliefs on the general population. ? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The punishment is a financial one.

...somebody quote me so JD can see what a liar he is.


http://www.principled-solutions.com/...pros-and-cons/

The Bad News

• You won’t enjoy any of the federal tax benefits of marriage. This includes the right to file jointly or claim spousal exemption from the federal estate tax. Nor can you establish a joint IRA or other tax-advantaged retirement savings account.
• Filing your income taxes will be more complex. Same-sex married couples may file their state tax returns jointly, but still need to file separate federal tax returns (either as single or head of household). That means you cannot piggyback your state tax filing off your federal return, making tax preparation even more complex, time consuming, and costly than it already is.
• You cannot collect residual Social Security benefits. For traditional married couples, the Social Security benefits of a deceased spouse go to the surviving spouse. Widowed spouses, as well as those who divorced after at least 10 years of marriage, are entitled to their spouse’s Social Security benefits if they are greater than their own. None of this is the case with same-sex married couples, who are entitled to none of these survivor benefits.

Old T is constantly throwing down the Taliban thing (and recently the Nazi thing) to sustain his arguments. He likes to compare the Tea Party and conservatives to the afore mentioned groups. However, he can not cite one instance where either the Tea Party (not really concerned with social issues) or conservatives have punished someone because of their stand on gay marriage or homosexuality. The Taliban and the Nazis are both famous for enforcing their beliefs on the general population. The conservatives express their opinion that something is wrong and that is as far as it goes. Even the Mathew Sheppard murder turned out to be a crime of passion committed by two gay men on another gay man. Can you show me a crime (I'll give you the last twenty years) where groups of flaming heterosexuals attacked homosexuals in the streets? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

This is a trick question, right?

First of all, I am NOT claiming ALL TP folks think that way, but if you see yourself as a RWW Thumper, then maybe the shoe does fit. If the TP would separate the social issues from their fiscal ideology it would help them a lot, but the reality is while YOU may separate them, many, many TPers are Wacked Out Thumpers on social issues as well.

And you really must be delusional if you are convinced that being told who you can/can't marry isn't a punishment, or the blowing up of abortion clinics isn't a punishment, or denying equal retirements to a 30 year partner because of their sex isn't a punishment, then I have no idea what you mean by punishment.

I will gladly answer your question about RWW Thumpers and Taliban.

BOTH believe THEIR version of holy scripture is literal.

Even so, BOTH have some creative ways of “interpreting” what was supposedly so clear and literal. Just listen to Thumper Radio to hear some rather different interpretations of specific scripture texts. Such fixation on literally interpreting writings with questionable pedigree (more so with the bible because it is older) leads to some weird beliefs such as creationism and a ridiculously young earth.

But more to this topic, the literalists are also often very closed minded. They BOTH believe their holy book tells their followers how to live—no problem so far. But then BOTH take it beyond reasonableness and insist THEIR book must be shoved down the throats of non-believers whether they like it or not.

While this has some merit at times—I have no problem with people applying “Thou shalt not kill” to the entire society—BOTH sets of Thumpers (bible thumpers and koran thumpers) take this beyond things like killing and claim that THEIR interpretation of morals needs to apply to all.

Applying this to same sex marriage (or Sunday sale of alcohol, or selling Playboy in the military PX, or contraceptives being covered by health care, etc.) they BOTH are adamant that laws should PROSCRIBE that non-believers follow the Thumper view of morals.

I have no problem with a religion group saying that their religion considers same-sex marriage a serious sin. I have no problem with screaming at their own believers that they will rot in hell if the marry someone of the same sex. I have a serious problem with Thumpers pushing to prevent OTHERS from doing so. In that way I see no philosophical difference between some (not all) RW bible thumpers and some (not all) RW koran Thumpers.

And before you are so convinced the RWW fringe of the RW bible Thumpers wouldn’t kill people just because they are homosexual, try checking your historical facts. Some (not all) RWWs have no problem killing homosexuals for no other reason than they are homosexual. Gay-friendly churches are attacked at times for no reason other than they are gay. When the Wackos believe they cannot shove their morals down everyone’s throats some will take it farther. Abortion clinic burnings and abortion doctor shootings come to mind.

Yes, killing people with vigilante squads in the streets is even worse than coercion through legislation, but fundamentally it is the same underlying belief that MY religion should apply to YOU as well, whether you like it or not. Only the means change.

I would really love to see how you and some of the other RWWs would tolerate living under a Hindu theocracy. Or Aztec. Somehow I suspect it would not go well. But that’s different of course. Yep, keep telling yourself that.

You claim there is equal rights for anyone—straight or gay—to marry. What you miss or ignore is the obvious implied “right to marry who you want”. If you see no problem in preventing SOME people from marrying who they want, then philosophically it is a tiny step to say EVERYONE should be told who they can and can’t marry. Thus my arranged marriage comment. Better yet, if we want laws saying I can only marry certain people—for the “good of society”—then we should have laws that tell people who they can marry based upon genetics, “for the good of society”. Sounds kind of Hitleresque, no? But the reality is—it’s the same damn thing! The only difference is WHO is deciding the allowable marriage pairings.

Yes, the RWW Thumpers are much, much closer to the Taliban and the Nazis than they wish to admit. They ALL believe it is the divine right of THEIR god to impose THEIR interpretation of THEIR scripture on everyone. Only the degree of legal punishment changes.

I haven't spent a lot of time searching--I have better things to do--but here is some recent info: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-hate...-jews-gay-men/

As requested....

The punishment is a financial one.
...somebody quote me so JD can see what a liar he is.


http://www.principled-solutions.com/...pros-and-cons/

The Bad News

• You won’t enjoy any of the federal tax benefits of marriage. This includes the right to file jointly or claim spousal exemption from the federal estate tax. Nor can you establish a joint IRA or other tax-advantaged retirement savings account.
• Filing your income taxes will be more complex. Same-sex married couples may file their state tax returns jointly, but still need to file separate federal tax returns (either as single or head of household). That means you cannot piggyback your state tax filing off your federal return, making tax preparation even more complex, time consuming, and costly than it already is.
• You cannot collect residual Social Security benefits. For traditional married couples, the Social Security benefits of a deceased spouse go to the surviving spouse. Widowed spouses, as well as those who divorced after at least 10 years of marriage, are entitled to their spouse’s Social Security benefits if they are greater than their own. None of this is the case with same-sex married couples, who are entitled to none of these survivor benefits.

Originally Posted by WTF

Whatever is between JD and me is between JD and me....and you ought to butt the fuck out. If you're with him on discrimination against gays, just say so....who gives a shit? You're just another idiot in a long line.

And, you're opinion regarding COG is interesting. COG and I have gone at it hammer and tong and disagreed on almost every single fucking thing (edit...see below)....long before you ever appeared here. But, I respect his opinion. He says some things that make a lot of sense....even if I rarely admit it. It's the Libertarian thing. Every once in a while they come up with something I can agree with. Originally Posted by timpage

You and I agree on most issues, but JD is more polite in his disagreements than you are when you agree - you have to admit, that is strange. Also, you are putting your opinions on a public board, so it isn't between you and JD only. We are all in this thing together unless you have a flame war going on through PM's. As for COG, I don't like him at all, but he is interesting at times. Like you, he is fundamentally more at home with disagreement than consensus. If you could rise above that you might get more people to support what you believe, rather than reflexively oppose you due to your disagreeable nature.