Why are they not rights?

5/13/2012 6:30:41 PM

Quote :

"i don't disagree with that. but gov't recognition and endorsement of your actions is NOT a right. a medical license is NOT a right. A driver's license is NOT a right. A marriage license is NOT a right."

Disagreed. A drivers license is the predominant method of travel. You do have the right to travel. So, the ability to obtain a drivers license is a right. Obviously there are reasons for regulating, but you cannot keep someone from getting a license because of their race, sex, nationality, etc.

For the same reason, a medical license is a right, and you cannot discriminate against any "suspect class" of people. You have to jump through the hoops to get there, but you can't keep someone from earning a medical license.

5/13/2012 6:35:26 PM

Quote :

"Disagreed. A drivers license is the predominant method of travel. You do have the right to travel. So, the ability to obtain a drivers license is a right."

Sure, the ability to obtain it is a right. But simply to be given one without question is NOT a right. This is evidenced by the fact that you have to take a test.

Quote :

"For the same reason, a medical license is a right"

No, it is NOT a right. if it were a right, then I could go up and demand one and I would be given one, no questions asked. yet that is clearly not the case.

5/13/2012 6:38:22 PM

aaronburro is the type of person that would argue that its the state right to regulate that marriage should be between only hetero sex same racial couples.

[Edited on May 13, 2012 at 6:41 PM. Reason : wow]

5/13/2012 6:40:44 PM

dude, the states might even be able to say they would only recognize marriages between same-race couples. there's two issues here: the action, and recognition of the action. people here can't separate the two

5/13/2012 6:42:51 PM

Quote :

"No, it is NOT a right. if it were a right, then I could go up and demand one and I would be given one, no questions asked. yet that is clearly not the case."

However, anyone has the right to earn a medical license, without regard to their class of people. Not the same with the marriage license now.

For your information:

Quote :

""The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579. "

[Edited on May 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2012 6:47:54 PM

^^ No, it's you that doesn't understand the government's arbitrary recognition of some activities over others is a restriction of that activity.

5/13/2012 6:51:14 PM

Life libery and the pursuit of judeo-christian happiness

I'm Krallum and I approved this message

[Edited on May 13, 2012 at 6:55 PM. Reason : some of which are american dreams. some of which are american dreams.]

5/13/2012 6:54:31 PM

Quote :

"However, anyone has the right to earn a medical license, without regard to their class of people. Not the same with the marriage license now."

Really? How do you figure? If any man walked up with a woman, are you saying he would not get a marriage license? who is being denied a license at this point, except for people who don't want to do what is necessary to get one? At this point, I am being denied a medical license because I have not passed med school. Have my rights been infringed?

Quote :

"No, it's you that doesn't understand the government's arbitrary recognition of some activities over others is a restriction of that activity."

Really? You mean I HAVE to have a marriage license in order to consider myself married? Will police show up and arrest me at the church if I try to marry my gf without obtaining a marriage license first? Will they bust into my house and separate the two of us and tell us never to see each other again if we don't get a marriage license?

5/13/2012 6:54:48 PM

Quote :

"Really? How do you figure? If any man walked up with a woman, are you saying he would not get a marriage license? who is being denied a license at this point, except for people who don't want to do what is necessary to get one? At this point, I am being denied a medical license because I have not passed med school. Have my rights been infringed?"

The gays are being denied one.

5/13/2012 6:56:52 PM

haha burro claimed that the gay's aren't "qualified" to be married, just as he isn't qualified to be a doctor

yeah, come on gays!
get it together and study real hard
one day you'll be a straight!

5/13/2012 6:59:46 PM

No, they aren't. If a gay man showed up with a woman, he could get a marriage license.

^ you do realize that it's possible to have qualifications for things that don't involve studying, right?

[Edited on May 13, 2012 at 7:01 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2012 7:00:04 PM

The GOP aimed to pass this every year for so many years. Often it'd only take a day or two into the session to get started on this bill. But sure enough once they got power, they got it passed. This time they called a 3 day special session (averaging about 50 k cost to tax payers a day, which I doubt compares to all the tax payer money spent on special ballots, or the 100k plus church donations that went to this rather than say feeding the poor).

All the polls say this is a generational issue. The leader of the NC GOP said this will be repealed within 20 years, though I'm confident it will be less. And the old guy who was the main proponent of this amendment died after it got on the ballot, but before the vote I believe.

The amendment doesn't take effect until next year. The Supreme Court could take up this issue as early as this or next year. If it ever does take effect, at least it wont exist long. But we'll have spent a lot of time and taxpayer money on it. Small government ftw.

5/13/2012 7:04:48 PM

Quote :

"No, they aren't. If a gay man showed up with a woman, he could get a marriage license."

And as long as a black man didn't show up with a white woman he could have gotten married too.

Doesn't mean his rights weren't being infringed upon.

[Edited on May 13, 2012 at 7:24 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2012 7:09:36 PM

And people have been arrested for attempting to obtain marriage licenses if they are gay.

These two for instance, attempted to get a marriage license. A good portion of their group was arrested. These two were escorted out by the police.



burro, have you read the Loving v. Virginia case?

5/13/2012 7:13:39 PM

At least this is becoming an issue of the past. The Libertarian candidate (Gary Johnson), the Democratic candidate (President Obama), and the Green candidate (whoever it is) all now support marriage equality. The Republican candidate (Mitt Romney) is the only lag behind, and that's a change from his past semi-supportive position before he ran for this higher office, I wouldn't be surprised if he's secretly still not as bad as he seems.

5/13/2012 7:30:40 PM

I think he prefers to lead from behind on this one.

5/13/2012 7:33:10 PM

Quote :

"I am being denied a medical license because I have not passed med school. Have my rights been infringed?"

Yes. In general licenses are not so much rights as they are a manifestation of the government's infringment on a right.

However, as I said before, most licenses have obvious and compelling arguments that the public good served by restricting licensure to qualified individuals outweighs the 'evil' of restricting the activities of those who do not meet the qualification. And, even then, the government often does not restrict licensed activities under conditions where others are not affected.

What public good is served by the government restricting marriage licenses exclusively to opposite sex couples?

5/13/2012 7:50:12 PM

Quote :

"What public good is served by the government restricting marriage licenses exclusively to opposite sex couples?"

You'll hear those people say that the government has a vested interest in promoting population growth, something that the gheys can't contribute to. Nevermind the rational arguments against this nonsense...

5/13/2012 8:38:24 PM

That is probably the worst argument out of an assload of terrible arguments. If there's a good one, I haven't heard it yet.

5/13/2012 8:42:59 PM

Good read regarding Amendment One

http://rachelheldevans.com/win-culture-war-lose-generation-amendment-one-north-carolina

5/13/2012 8:43:32 PM

Quote :

"And as long as a black man didn't show up with a white woman he could have gotten married too. Doesn't mean his rights weren't being infringed upon."

why do I have to say this a thousand fucking times? You've made this quip before, and I've corrected you and others at least 5 times on here. Loving vs Virginia dealt with making it ILLEGAL for a black man to marry a white woman. As in, he was thrown in jail. Show me where anything remotely similar is happening in current state law.

Quote :

"And people have been arrested for attempting to obtain marriage licenses if they are gay."

How did they go about it? Did they cause a scene when they were denied something they knew they would be denied because they didn't meet the legal qualifications? probably so. They weren't arrested for trying to get a license. They were arrested for being dickbags.

Quote :

"What public good is served by the government restricting marriage licenses exclusively to opposite sex couples?"

I'll refer you to my previous response to this exact same question: where does it say that we can only pass laws based on public good? You've got this false notion that laws are invalid if they don't address a public good.

5/13/2012 11:34:27 PM

im getting sick and tired of people comparing....o fuck it

5/13/2012 11:35:15 PM

Quote :

"why do I have to say this a thousand fucking times? You've made this quip before, and I've corrected you and others at least 5 times on here. Loving vs Virginia dealt with making it ILLEGAL for a black man to marry a white woman. As in, he was thrown in jail. Show me where anything remotely similar is happening in current state law."

People are going to jail for this issue.

And just because people aren't all being thrown in jail doesn't mean rights aren't being infringed.

What exactly are you arguing at this point? Clearly this amendment and all others like it are unconstitutional. It's only a matter of time before they are overturned on those grounds.

5/13/2012 11:53:51 PM

Quote :

"People are going to jail for this issue."

And I'll ask you again: has Supplanter been thrown in jail yet? he claims he's married to a man. has he been thrown in jail? Does he fear that he'll be thrown in jail? Are cops coming in and separating him from his lover? Are they doing that? No, they aren't. When you look at why people are being thrown in jail, it's not for being gay, it's not for claiming they are married, it's not for actually living with someone of the same sex.

Quote :

"And just because people aren't all being thrown in jail doesn't mean rights aren't being infringed."

Sure, but as I said before, it's a damned good benchmark. in general, if you are doing something illegal, you can expect to be thrown in jail or receive a fine or have some kind of punishment. Jail is a good proxy for that. Now, show me where homosexuals are receiving some kind of gov't punishment for being a homosexual.

Quote :

"Clearly this amendment and all others like it are unconstitutional."

How do you figure? What Constitutionally protected right is being infringed? The right to have the gov't give you a pat on the back for your life choices? What federally protected class is being discriminated against?

5/13/2012 11:57:53 PM

On August 4, 2010, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker overturned Proposition 8, stating it is "...unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because no compelling state interest justifies denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry."[178] The court also determined that "Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection Clause because there is no rational basis for limiting the designation of 'marriage' to opposite-sex couples."


Thanks to you burro I ll no longer read or see anything about the civil rights era and wonder how ordinary people could be ignorant or naive enough to support oppression enshrined by law. It still baffles me you can't see how this is wrong under the constitution especially with so much historical precedent to inform your opinion.

They say that those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it, but here we have you, being shown the history, but are insisting we repeat it anyway. This goes beyond insanity to a mindset I don't know how to describe really.

5/14/2012 12:14:29 AM

Quote :

"I'll refer you to my previous response to this exact same question: where does it say that we can only pass laws based on public good? You've got this false notion that laws are invalid if they don't address a public good."

Just can't bring yourself to answer the question, huh?

I do not have the notion that all laws must meet some public good. The examples I used leading up to the question pretty clearly illustrate that.

I do have the notion that if government is going to restrict individual liberties--such as by requiring licenses--then it had better have a good reason. Such as...oh, I don't know...the individual liberty being outweighed some other societal good.

5/14/2012 12:15:59 AM

You'll forgive me if I don't take California's word for what's Constitutional. You'll also forgive me if I scoff at your backhanded attempt at calling me a bigot. Learn to actually argue your point, instead of just insulting your opponent. Also, I can't comprehend how someone seemingly intelligent enough to obtain a college degree can't understand the difference between an action and government recognition and endorsement of an action.

Quote :

"Just can't bring yourself to answer the question, huh?"

I already HAVE answered the question: legality of a laws is not predicated upon them effecting some public good.

Quote :

"I do have the notion that if government is going to restrict individual liberties--such as by requiring licenses--then it had better have a good reason. Such as...oh, I don't know...the individual liberty being outweighed some other societal good."

And you re still failing to show where ANY individual liberties are being restricted. Who is being prevented from pledging his life to another? WHO IS BEING PREVENTED FROM DOING THIS?

5/14/2012 12:16:39 AM

Quote :

"I already HAVE answered the question:"

That's not answer to the question I asked.

Quote :

"Who is being prevented from pledging his life to another?"

No one.

But pledging one's life to another isn't the government interpretation of marriage, now is it?

5/14/2012 12:22:03 AM

So... You have nothing but your clearly wrong conjecture that is completely ignorant of history, I have a us district court ruling that spells out why discrimination is unconstitutional and I'm the one who doesn't know how to argue?

I posted an actual legal case that's exactly what you ask for, and your response is "lol california" but it's me thats not making sense?

At this point I have to assume you're trolling because there is evidence here that makes it abundantly clear that your idiotic conjecture that it's actually okay to discriminate against people as long as theres no Gestapo rounding them up , is wrong. But yet you'll dismiss this, cover your ears, then keep shouting your worthless opinion.

On this issue, you're not actually a bigot, you are just complicit with bigotry apparently.

5/14/2012 12:27:37 AM

Jesus isn't real. Nothing happens when you die.

5/17/2012 1:53:21 PM

Quote :

"At this point I have to assume you're trolling"

Of course he's trolling. It's aaronburro. He got lost on his way over to TSB to do his regular trolling over there.

5/17/2012 1:56:02 PM

Quote :

" And you re still failing to show where ANY individual liberties are being restricted. Who is being prevented from pledging his life to another? WHO IS BEING PREVENTED FROM DOING THIS?"

So people can say the words "I pledge my life to you." Thanks for pointing this out. Great argument.

How about the right of a same-sex couple to adopt children?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2012/may/08/gay-rights-united-states

No restrictions there, u rite. Employers can not hire someone for being gay but it's cool.

[Edited on May 17, 2012 at 2:21 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2012 2:16:35 PM

5/17/2012 3:34:53 PM

people with lazy eyes shouldn't be allowed to get married either

5/17/2012 3:42:51 PM

5/17/2012 3:56:28 PM

Another NC pastor making our whole state look idiotic. So much wrong with this guy's idea.




If you rounded up all of the homosexuals and put them in a fence, that would not prevent homosexuals from being born. Close to 100% of homosexual people were created by heterosexual sex, and maybe a baker's dozen test tube babies.

This also seems to acknowledge that homosexuality is in fact genetic and not a chosen behavior. This is a huge step forward for evangelicals everywhere.

[Edited on May 21, 2012 at 1:59 PM. Reason : .]

5/21/2012 1:59:19 PM

^ Those are the ones that usually get caught in the pedophile church sex scandals.

5/21/2012 2:10:58 PM

or smoking meth with male hookers they hire.

5/21/2012 2:21:21 PM

Quote :

"Charles L. Worley, North Carolina Pastor: Put Gays And Lesbians In Electrified Pen To Kill Them Off May 21, 2012 13:33:00 The barrage of anti-gay sermons delivered by North Carolina-based pastors to hit the blogosphere continues with yet another disturbing rant caught on tape. The pastor, identified on YouTube as Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C., condemns President Obama's much-publicized endorsement of same-sex marriage while calling for gays and lesbians to be put in an electrified pen and ultimately killed off. "Build a great, big, large fence -- 150 or 100 mile long -- put all the lesbians in there," Worley suggests in the clip, reportedly filmed on May 13. He continues: "Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out...and you know what, in a few years, they'll die out...do you know why? They can't reproduce!" He also said that if he's asked who he'll vote for, he'll reply, "I'm not going to vote for a baby killer and a homosexual lover!" Many of the congregants cheer and reply, "Amen." Worley added, “It makes me pukin’ sick to think about -- I don’t even whether or not to say this in the pulpit -- can you imagine kissing some man?” The pastor's comments seem in line with statements made by Ron Baity, founding pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem and head of the anti-marriage equality organization Return America, who told his own congregation that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people should be prosecuted as they were historically, and Pastor Sean Harris of the Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville who advocated parents "punch" their male child if he is effeminate and "crack that wrist" if he is limp-wristed. Similarly, Tim Rabon, pastor at Raleigh's Beacon Baptist Church, condemned states such as Massachusetts, Connecticut and Maryland which have already "re-defined" marriage to include lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) couples before asking his congregatnts, "What is stopping them from refining marriage from a person and a beast? We're not far from that.""

5/21/2012 3:50:37 PM

BEASTS CANNOT PROVIDE CONSENT TO MARRY

PEOPLE CAN

ALLOWING PEOPLE TO MARRY OTHER PEOPLE IS NOT AT ALL SIMILAR TO ALLOWING PEOPLE TO MARRY BEASTS

5/21/2012 3:55:19 PM

So much stupid.

Quote :

"He continues: "Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out...and you know what, in a few years, they'll die out...do you know why? They can't reproduce!""

Right, because all those gays are offsprings of gay men impregnating gay women and having gay babies

5/21/2012 4:00:05 PM

What a fucking hate-filled, backwoods, dumbshit hick. I can't for shitheads like this to die off so younger generations can try to get past all this ridiculous bigotry.

5/21/2012 4:01:02 PM

Conalingus Rice sounds like a Mexican dish

Why don't we send her to Mexico and let the Mexicans eat her

5/21/2012 4:01:47 PM

Christianity is hilarious

5/21/2012 4:02:48 PM

white power

5/21/2012 4:16:34 PM

hahahahahahah

that is not a sermon....that's a rant

the 'congregation' is even more fucking stupid than that hick preacher for sitting there and listening to that shit

5/21/2012 4:30:18 PM

http://www.thegodarticle.com/15/post/2012/05/who-says-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

Great article. I have not kept up with this thread so I am not sure if this article is even relevant to the conversation.

5/21/2012 5:46:04 PM

^Since all I do in grad school is read hebrew texts and provide modern interpretations, I LOVED this

5/21/2012 6:20:24 PM

Always remember: that hazy line in Leviticus about killing gays is way more important than "Thou shall not kill" or any of that hippy dippy love everyone shit that Jesus spouted.

5/21/2012 6:31:49 PM