Ron Paul Gay Marriage Rulling Was A DEFEAT to The Constitution and Victory For BIG Government.

Never said anything about who issues the peice of paper, quite honestly i dont need anyone saying "here is a paper saying your marriage is legit". Its between me and the other person(s) same sex or not. Point being, we could have made it so it was fair for everyone by getting government OUT of the business, instead the homosexuals invited them in. Again because the debate was framed in a certain light.

 

Wow listen to you hahaha. Government needs to be involved in marriage for tax reasons.... they got you wrapped around their finger bro, what kind of brainwashing does it take for someone to defend the very entity that picks their pocket? Religions, but they are at least voluntary. Instead you invite them to dole out marriages with the rationale that it makes it easier for them to figure out taxes? Wow.

I already named one reason, unfair/biased tax incentives for married people.

Btw all those incentives you listed could just as well be honored without some official stamped paper with your nannys approval. But thatnks for enforcing my point, there is preferential treatment for government sanctioned marriages, which is bullshit. Going back to my original point, this is why the homosexual community should have been clammering for those incentives to be stripped instead of them getting them too. They could have been doing common law marriages, the only reason to give a damn if the government sanctions their marriage IS the unjust incentives. Liberty and justice for some.

 

Honestly is there really a point in responding to this. You've shown time and time again you will never once change your mind. You are so convinced that the world would be so much better without any government. Any topic that is discussed your solution is the same, no more government. You are a broken record of arguments and it's really not interesting to have a discussion that always comes back to the same tired argument. Even I constantly doubt my positions all the time. If you don't then you are not being a smart individual. A dose of skepticism is a good thing and keeps you from making stupid mistakes. If you think you know all the solutions and how to fix everything then you are too confident in your own abilities to judge the world but that is just my .02. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

 

That's a complete and utter lie. The ACLU is doing nothing of the sort. Churches are exempt. They can discriminate to their hearts content. Your link is referring to Roberts claim that Church organizations like adoption agencies or colleges that offer housing to opposite sex couple could lose their tax exempt status if they discriminate against same sex couples. Organizations which get money from the government or qualify for tax exemption. These are all wild speculations and scare mongering rhetoric from Roberts and others that are against marriage equality. Natural marriage? What does that even mean? And by the way, the last I heard, gay people have families too.

 

Ahh throw in your last word and now we can call it a draw?

Until i feel unencumbered and free, i will speak out against that which inhibits me. If the government was in its proper place i wouldnt have a problem with it.

Forgive me for having values and ya know, actually standing up for them. If you only feel safe living in a government padded cell, feel free to be complacent, i will take the challenges of freedom over the challenges of oppression anyday.

 

Did you even bother to read the article? Nothing in there about the ACLU suing churches. It does say that churches are exempt. The only thing close to what you're claiming is some radical activist shooting his load in the op-ed section of the NY Times. He doesn't make or uphold laws. The SCOTUS was quite clear on churches being exempt. You're really stretching here.


Marriage hasn't always been man and woman. It's been man and WOMEN. Man and sister. Man and property. Marriage has been evolving since marriage was even a thing. There are cultures ancient and modern that have and had same sex marriage. Native Americans being a prime example. There is no such thing as "natural marriage" and your definition of marriage is a modern construct.


The townhall as a credible source? Seriously?

 

The status quo has already changed. Look at any public opinion polling and you'll see that the tides are turning. Most people realize denying gay people these rights doesn't affect their lives in any way and is a positive for gay people. People have use the same fallacious appeals to tradition to justify oppressing minorities when brown vs board came down and when interracial marriage was legalized. Who gives a fuck. If you don't like gay marriage don't get married to a dude, it's as simple as that. I assume you are a man. If you are female don't get married to a female. End of discussion.

 

People still worship the constitution?

 

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' data-author="DivineVictoryX" data-cid="21801361" data-time="1435606900">Well at least I was right about it being Unconstitutional!<blockquote><br/>
<br/><br/>

No, you weren't. The Supreme Court determines what is constitutional, not the states. When the Supreme Court says every citizen has the right to marriage it is because they have strengthened your basic rights as a citizen. The states do not have the power to say "No they don't!" anymore, which frankly is a good thing if 37/50 states have passed a marriage equality law because there are benefits that have absolutely nothing to do with religion.

 

The federal government doesn't give marriage licenses, the state does so it is a violation. The ruling document of the land explicitly states that this right goes to the states because it is not defined in the document. The founding fathers knew about homosexuality it isn't like human sexuality deviated from the social norm starting in the 1960s. It is a violation and it is obvious, it is up the citizens of that state to decide if they want to allow same sex marriage. What happened to separation of church and state? If that was true in this society then single people would pay the same federal taxes as those who are married. Welcome to the land of contradiction.

 

You are wrong, sorry. The Supreme Court expanded the definition of marriage on the most basic level, because that is the point of the Supreme Court. The state does not have the right to decide who gets married, the Supreme Court does.

 

The state has exactly that right, show me in the US Constitution where it says that. Go read it, or do you want me to quote directly where it says it and spoon feed you like a baby?

 

The document says, rights not given the the federal government in this document are reserved for the states. In similar words of course.

 

No, it doesn't. Stop talking about things you don't understand.