Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

View Poll Results: Should we allow gays the same rights as hetrosexuals?
Yes 68 72.34%
No 8 8.51%
Leave it to the states. Not a federal issue. 17 18.09%
GAZ says FU BRC, you are gay 1 1.06%
Voters: 94. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-09-2012, 09:03 AM  
BigRedChief BigRedChief is offline
Brainwashed
 
BigRedChief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Swims with fishes
Casino cash: $299640
SCOTUS to take on allowing Gays to marry. What say you?

There are two cases(DOMA and Proposition 8) to be heard by the SCOTUS this session.

At the base of the question is do gay Americans have the same rights as heterosexual Americans? And if so, do they need their constitutional rights protected at the federal level.

I've never had an openly gay friend, co-worker or family member. I did coach a little league baseball team. On that team I had a player with two Mom's. The players and the parents accepted the kid of the two Mom's as any other player. The other parents let their kids go over to the two Mom's house for sleepovers etc. It wasn't a factor to consider in the slightest.

I don't have any personal experience to know what rights is actually being denied. However, I believe that for whatever reason they were born that way. It's not a choice. You can't pray it out of them. You can't give them therapy and turn them into heterosexuals. They are what they are naturally and we should just accept them.

IMHO, the government/city/state/society have no right to tell it's citizens what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. some of our citizens who they can and who they can't love. Who they can and can't marry. History will not be kind to the discrimination of gays, with cause. It's time to end this era of gay discrimination.
Posts: 42,500
BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.BigRedChief is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 05:31 PM   #241
JohnnyV13 JohnnyV13 is offline
Veteran
 
JohnnyV13's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tucson AZ
Casino cash: $62372
Actually, the issue isn't whether gay people have the same rights as everyone else, the question is whether the state has the power to PREVENT gay people from ordering their lives as they please.

Since we have a fundamental right to liberty, free association and free exercise of religion, then to ban gay marriage you need to show that the state has the power to do so---its going to a require a compelling state interest and the law will have to be the least intrusive way of statisfying that state interest. In short, it will have to pass the strict scrutiny test.
__________________
http://thevirilview.com/royals

Where blogging is cheap therapy for 27 years of frustration
Posts: 2,836
JohnnyV13 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.JohnnyV13 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.JohnnyV13 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.JohnnyV13 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.JohnnyV13 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.JohnnyV13 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.JohnnyV13 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.JohnnyV13 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.JohnnyV13 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.JohnnyV13 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.JohnnyV13 must have mowed badgirl's lawn.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 05:33 PM   #242
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $473425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock View Post
Sure. But let's just let them marry each other instead. It's fine, it won't hurt a thing, and there's probably a lot of benefit to it.
Yes, I support that. I just don't support this relatively new idea that we owe those benefits to gay couples simply because we see fit to extend them to couples born of traditional marriages. We should have the ability to choose who we want to cover with the Pell Grant program and the married filing jointly tax table (within limited constraints).
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,743
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 05:34 PM   #243
WoodDraw WoodDraw is offline
Veteran
 
WoodDraw's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Casino cash: $42077
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
Yes, I support that. I just don't support this relatively new idea that we owe those benefits to gay couples simply because we see fit to extend them to couples born of traditional marriages. We should have the ability to choose who we want to cover with the Pell Grant program and the married filing jointly tax table (within limited constraints).
Err, what?
Posts: 3,784
WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 05:34 PM   #244
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $107825
Here's a really good analysis of the flaws in the gay marriage debate from both sides from the Tenth Amendment Center, particularly on the part where marriage is claimed as a right. This guy supports gays getting married, but as a contract, not as a right and not having the Federal govt involved since he supports the federalism in our Constitution.

Quote:
Next, is marriage a right? The answer to this is almost immediately no, because it involves consent from another party. If I can’t find someone who will agree to marry me, I cannot get married. If it were a right, I could exercise it without permission from someone else. Saying that marriage is a right, for the person who hasn’t found an agreeable spouse, is like saying we have a right to buy a time machine. It’s nonsensical. You can’t have a right to do something that can’t be done.

Why is Gay Marriage Like a Dodge Durango?
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012...dodge-durango/
__________________
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” — James Madison
Posts: 56,199
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 05:36 PM   #245
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $107825
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyV13 View Post
Actually, the issue isn't whether gay people have the same rights as everyone else, the question is whether the state has the power to PREVENT gay people from ordering their lives as they please.

Since we have a fundamental right to liberty, free association and free exercise of religion, then to ban gay marriage you need to show that the state has the power to do so---its going to a require a compelling state interest and the law will have to be the least intrusive way of statisfying that state interest. In short, it will have to pass the strict scrutiny test.
Yes, but only by the state level govts under the Tenth Amendment. The Incorporation Doctrine is bogus on this. The federal congress would have to make a law banning gay marriage for it to be an unConstitutional act.

Also gays under ordering their lives as they please have no right to insist others change their definition of marriage, recognize their marriages or demand others subsidize any part of it.
__________________
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” — James Madison
Posts: 56,199
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 05:37 PM   #246
petegz28 petegz28 is offline
Supporter
 
petegz28's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Olathe, Ks
Casino cash: $260347
I voted yes. They pay taxes like I pay taxes. As long as we don't force religious institutes to marry gays then what the hell? It's their life, not mine.
__________________
"Finally, anyone who uses the terms, irregardless, a whole nother, or all of a sudden shall be sentenced to a work camp."

Stewie Griffin
Posts: 64,759
petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 05:38 PM   #247
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $473425
Quote:
Originally Posted by WoodDraw View Post
Err, what?
Huh?
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,743
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 05:44 PM   #248
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $33021
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
Of course not. Neither is traditional marriage.

The supreme court has ruled 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right. You are completely wrong is this regard.
Posts: 3,607
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 05:44 PM   #249
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $33021
My two cents: Yes.

Why does the Government, who is the power that legally acknowledges all the benefits of the marriage contract, make the choice on who can sign that contract, based on religious views?

Marriage benefits include the following:
(the full list can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_..._United_States)

Joint and family-related rights:
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
domestic violence intervention

There are some really important rights in there -- visitation rights, custodial rights -- and every single marriage benefit is given out by the government. What basis's does religion have to dictate who receives those benefits? It violates Equal Protection under the law (that is my current bet).

I also wasn't aware that meant churches would be forced to preform gay marriage. What basis does the government have to dictate what a church does with ceremonies? I wouldn't advocate that. I'm sure some churches would choose to preform the ceremony, then market forces can decide .

Separate church and state, duh, and let the churches have their beliefs and let anyone sign the government contract.
Posts: 3,607
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 05:45 PM   #250
WoodDraw WoodDraw is offline
Veteran
 
WoodDraw's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Casino cash: $42077
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
Huh?
I don't get your argument. Is it that pell grants and gay marriage are equivalent?
Posts: 3,784
WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.WoodDraw has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 05:47 PM   #251
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $107825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
My two cents: Yes.

Why does the Government, who is the power that legally acknowledges all the benefits of the marriage contract, make the choice on who can sign that contract, based on religious views?
Capital "G" implies the Federal govt which was NEVER empowered to deal with this issue. So no the "Government" of which you speak isn't "the power to acknowledge the all the benefits of the marriage contract." You progs have to centralize and nationalize every wrong through the use of intellectual lies and dishonesty.


Quote:
Separate church and state, duh, and let the churches have their beliefs and let anyone sign the government contract.
It's a license—NOT a contract. It should be a contract—but a private one that the state will enforce.
__________________
“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” — James Madison
Posts: 56,199
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 05:52 PM   #252
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $473425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
The supreme court has ruled 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right. You are completely wrong is this regard.
No I'm not. Those 14 citations notwithstanding, the government could remove itself from the business of marriage tomorrow without running afoul of the constitution.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,743
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 05:53 PM   #253
chiefzilla1501 chiefzilla1501 is offline
MVP
 

Join Date: Aug 2008
Casino cash: $126849
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
Capital "G" implies the Federal govt which was NEVER empowered to deal with this issue. So no the "Government" of which you speak isn't "the power to acknowledge the all the benefits of the marriage contract." You progs have to centralize and nationalize every wrong through the use of intellectual lies and dishonesty.
I don't understand this. The Federal government is offering rights and benefits to straight couples that they do not offer to gay couples, and it is because of a federal definition of what constitutes a marriage. If they didn't offer those benefits, there would be no question that this would be a private issue. But because they are offering rights/benefits to one group and not the other, it becomes a federal issue.
Posts: 19,606
chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 05:57 PM   #254
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $473425
Quote:
Originally Posted by WoodDraw View Post
I don't get your argument. Is it that pell grants and gay marriage are equivalent?
It's that we can decide how to dole out Pell grants and benefits associated with marriage as long as we have a rational basis for our choices (with the limited complications presented by race). For example, we can decide that married couples only get their separate tax table up to the point where their income exceeds a certain amount. Or only if the marriage has produced a child. Or only if one of the spouses has no income. Or not at all. Or any of an infinite number of other discriminating factors.
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,743
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 06:01 PM   #255
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $473425
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 View Post
I don't understand this. The Federal government is offering rights and benefits to straight couples that they do not offer to gay couples, and it is because of a federal definition of what constitutes a marriage. If they didn't offer those benefits, there would be no question that this would be a private issue. But because they are offering rights/benefits to one group and not the other, it becomes a federal issue.
Does the federal government have the ability to offer benefits to poor people but not rich people? To home owners but not renters? To people who do business in one location but not those in another? To people who study science but not people who study theory of pole dancing?
__________________


"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.
Posts: 75,743
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.