RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Gay-rights advocates to challenge Proposition 8

I think the comic book that was supposed to of explained it to him has been delayed.

maybe the novella will be out ahead of schedule!

Exactly marriage is not a right anymore than a driver's license. States regulate both.

Fine with me if the gays get married, As long as they don't go thinking they can get a divorce. Now there's a sacred event between a man and a woman.

To use the driver's license issue, what you seem to be saying is that it would be okay for states to ban gays from driving. However, that is unconstitutional.

Are you really this stupid?

Have you ever discussed this kind of thing with someone in real life? Or said it out loud before typing it? Or are you just criminally retarded?

Alright. Since it's obvious that you all have degrees from Harvard in constitutional law, explain it to me. Please. In detail.

I already explained it and told you how to change it. You're just too dense to understand it. Keep bitching and moaning. Do absolutely nothing. See what that does for your causes.

No, actually, you DIDN'T explain how it wasn't unconstitutional. Please, go ahead whenever you're ready.

Its perfectly constitutional for gays to get married. Its just that they have to marry someone of the other sex. That's not right wing anti-gay hate, its fact.

If you want that changed do what I said earlier in the thread.

But how is it not unconstitutional to forbid them to marry someone regardless of gender? Why is a law preventing dudes from marrying dudes or chicks from marrying chicks okay?

I will say that it's inspiring that rex can advocate social activism despite his fancy job, his house, his impressive college degree, his active social life, and his committed relationship with his significant other. Where does he find the time???

I don't know where it is written but that is the way the law is currently. Bitching and moaning about it won't change it. You can't just hope for change, you have to go out and do it.

Why is it constitutional to promote it?

Marriage is not a constitutional staple. It is a government institution designed to specifically work a certain way (male/female couple). It can't work the way you want to arrange it and so it's made illegal. That has nothing to do with the constitution or discrimination laws.

Okay, fair enough. However, laws concerning abortion used to be consider state matters until the Supreme Court ruled such laws unconstitutional in Roe V. Wade. What do you think the difference is?

I think throwing out political buzzwords in a sad attempt to sound intelligent is sad.

That's funny. The guy with no college education is lecturing me on intelligence.

How cute. The college boy is being all elitist.

Enlighten me, o rex, what "buzzwords" have I allegedly used? "Law"? "Court"? "Unconstitutional"? "The"?

You're trying to sound intelligent when you have no idea what you're talking about.

I think the difference is that the matter of Roe v Wade escalated that far and Gay Marriage has yet to do so (hopefully never). That doesn't mean the matter is up to the supreme court to decide upon. Not every controversy that makes it into the supreme court's plate is a constitutional matter; not every matter that is decided constitutionally relevant will truly be as such.

I think the problem here is how much faith and credibility you put into the people who actually handle the law-making.

"Hi, kettle? This is the pot. Oh, and the Doors are an emo band."

And, you are a bald pussy!

You are what you eat....

So you're definitely not a bald pussy.

Snarf college education isn't the supreme education. There are plenty of other way to get educated besides the pseudo-religious confines of a university. Also wouldn't it be, "The guy without the college education", you college dumbasses can't even use the language.


But seriously Snarf, if you want a guy to butt plug you, the marriage laws will not stop it.

Maybe he is right. He did win a $25 writing contest for readers digest.

I just don't see why all the ways it is more productive for a male/female couple to marry don't apply for gay couples (barring procreation).

Because two dudes fucking each other look disgusting.

Just to clarify, I don't really give a shit about this issue. I think that all marriage should be made illegal just to put it off the fucking table.

The problem here, Snarf, is your argument. You're throwing around the Constitution as a defense of your side (and I think you've made it abundantly clear to everyone here how terribly much you want to find that right guy to tie the knot with) when you don't really seem to understand what you're saying. You have, as of yet, shown where marriage is a constitutional guarantee. Your use of the 14th Amendment is broad and ignorant. Convicted felons cannot vote. Is that unconstitutional? A person cannot marry more than one other person under the law. Is that unconstitutional?

This is also another example of Snarf coming to the forum and recycling years-old argument as if he has a new insight. Every point Snarf is trying to make was set forth, multiple times, in a thread about gay marriage that Perkins started over five years ago. And, far from an obscure thread, it's one of the longest running here.

Oh. My. GOD! What have I done?!? I've posted something that someone else posted! I have shamed not only myself but the high standards of integrity set forth here on the RKMBS!





































Sincerely,
Rob Kamphausen.

for the record, i did not say that. you can tell by the use of capital letters.

You said it with capital letters in the novella that Snarf wrote.












He won 8th place...
















even though he was the only one who entered.

8th is just the 7th place to lose

you did not say that because 8 and 7 was capitalized

SNARF = FAIL x 7!


All I have to add to this is: this is a country where people elect individuals to represent THEIR ideals, as that is what a Representative Democracy is. Where they are to protect the rights of the minority, the majority should decide the law of the land, regardless of the minority preference. Whether an ideal is right or wrong depends upon the subject, but in this country, right or wrong, the majority decides. So since the MAJORITY decided AGAINST homosexual marriage, homosexuals have to suck it up and deal with it. Marriage itself has its roots in religion, and many religious doctrines speak against homosexuality. Whether the sects or churches uphold that belief varies, however it is a part of scripture from which they allege to represent. Both the Bible and the Koran say God created man and woman, specifically, to be together. The bible says they are considered "one flesh" and that God "yoked" them. Christ paraphrased Genesis, reaffirming this for his disciples. The Koran says it is essential to please Allah.

So our government, in accord with the majority of the masses having a spiritual belief, makes marriage an institution of the government so long as it follows the guidelines previously set out. It is not, however, a constitutional guarantee. If the government decides to do away with marriage, that is their right so long as the people tolerate it. However, since marriage could be considered a religious practice, banning marriage could be seen as infringing upon the first amendment and be overturned by the Supreme Court. The fairest way to amend the constitution in this degree would be to have the people vote. In this case the people have voted and homosexual marriage has been banned. That's not to say homosexuals can't keep adding it onto the ballot, or create a whole new class of civil union and persistently seek government acknowledgment, but to demand their "right" to a marriage is ignorant and undermines the very nature of a democratic government.

i don't understand how gay marriage infringes on the rights of anyone? if it's not infringing on your rights, why should it be illegal?