tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post2966546678021318748..comments2023-06-15T06:23:17.974-04:00Comments on OneMan-OneWoman.org: Fighting for same-sex ‘marriage’ through the courts: Short-term gains, long-term failure?Louis J. Marinellihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15308380959526067415noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-38121066586453475372010-10-23T08:11:29.531-04:002010-10-23T08:11:29.531-04:00On the link below you will find many reasons, fact...On the link below you will find many reasons, facts and evidence exposing how the gay movement is Attacking our Cultural, Fiscal, Political & Judicial Systems.<br /><br /><br />Article: http://fedupjeff-protectmorality.blogspot.com/fedupjeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08923042937734514558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-3889402300109319772010-10-21T10:31:18.242-04:002010-10-21T10:31:18.242-04:00Louis,
Please finish the sentence you wrote.
&qu...Louis,<br /><br />Please finish the sentence you wrote.<br /><br />"And certainly there is a difference between a ban on interracial marriage, which was centered upon the notion of White supremacy, and a ban on same-sex marriage", 'which is based on the notion of religious supremacy.'<br /><br />"Permitting same-sex marriage dramatically changes the institution of marriage itself."<br /><br />No, it does not. It simply does not. It will in no way, shape, or form reduce the number of heterosexual couples who will be married. It will in no way, shape, or form hinder the state's ability to provide marriage benefits, rights, responsibilities, and incentives to heterosexual couples. It will in no, way, shape or form result in heterosexual men marrying one another or heterosexual women marrying one another unless they wish to be deceptive enough to commit fraud.<br /><br />In fact, marriage was historically a monogamous union that didn't discriminate based on gender in ancient Rome. Before Rome, there was no "marriage". Even in Jewish/Christian culture, their unions were polygynous.<br /><br />Please just admit it, Louis, and stop skirting around the issue. The reason you have a problem with gay marriage is because you have a problem with gay love. <br /><br />Given your escalating language and your recent article on instances of same-gender sexuality in the animal kingdom, it is becoming even more obvious that you have a problem with gay people.<br /><br />Trust me. Admitting this will in no way, shape, or form alter our perceptions of you.<br /><br />Best wishes to you. I only wish that you would extend to me the same sentiments, especially on the day when I, a man, marry the man I love.<br /><br />-RJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-79967491455321145322010-10-21T06:15:17.646-04:002010-10-21T06:15:17.646-04:00Loving,
Please finish the sentence you cite. &quo...Loving,<br /><br />Please finish the sentence you cite. "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."<br /><br />Just how does same-sex marriage fit into that. I see how you conveniently cherry-picked the part that helps your cause but how does two people of the same sex play into our very existence and survival. It's clear that that means procreation.<br /><br />And certainly there is a difference between a ban on interracial marriage, which was centered upon the notion of White supremacy, and a ban on same-sex marriage.<br /><br />Allowing the races to freely marry amongst themselves did not change the fundamental definition of marriage. You still have/had one man and one woman.<br /><br />Permitting same-sex marriage dramatically changes the institution of marriage itself.Louis J. Marinellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15308380959526067415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-38226844725759117122010-10-21T04:44:16.640-04:002010-10-21T04:44:16.640-04:00"Same-sex marriage is not a right and marriag..."Same-sex marriage is not a right and marriage itself has been regulated throughout time..."<br /><br />In the case of Loving v. Virginia, 1967, the Supreme Court handed down a decision which explicitly stated that the right to marry is a "basic civil right of man". <br /><br />In situations wherein a basic civil right is being denied to a group of persons, regardless whether such a right is denied by explicit exclusion of the infringed group or by the restrictions which the government imposes on the exercise of that right, which is here homosexuals, then the government must provide a compelling state interest to deny the people their freedom. <br /><br />Conservatives would have you believe that the compelling state interest in denying homosexuals the right to marry is procreation, or the "propagation of society" as some have called it, as is evident in the numerous benefits granted married couples. <br /><br />This claim can be easily countered by the fact we do not require increased procreation of children, we require increased welfare of children. There were at the end of 2009 over 118,000 children in the foster care system, not yet adopted and still waiting for care. Thus marriage cannot be denied on the basis of procreation.<br /><br />Conservatives will then say that gays make for bad parents. But in the overwhelming majority of studies conducted and verified by accredited psychological and medical institutions, there has been no compelling evidence to suggest that same-sex couples are any less capable than opposite couples in providing care for children and raising them well and healthily.<br /><br />Therefore the denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples is unjustified, and it is a violation of the equal protection clause.Lovinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitutionnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-31275182839422558222010-10-20T16:19:34.989-04:002010-10-20T16:19:34.989-04:00Louis wrote: However, marriage is a contract to w...Louis wrote: However, marriage is a contract to which the government is a party. The government is "of the people, for the people and by the people", thus, the people have a say in the terms of said contract. <br /><br />You keep making this assertion, Louis. In fact, you once specifically asserted that you were a party to my own marriage contract.<br /><br />Yet, your name and signature appear nowhere on the paperwork my husband and I received from the government.<br /><br />You're wrong, Louis. Period.<br /><br />Bless your heart.<br /><br />Fiona64Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-61841302778449766982010-10-19T16:20:46.909-04:002010-10-19T16:20:46.909-04:00"It’s clear as day that America’s moral compa..."It’s clear as day that America’s moral compass has been knocked around and the calibration has since been thrown off."<br /><br />No, Louis. YOUR moral view of America has been thrown off. Believe it or not, the religious right does not hold a monopoly over morality. This is especially true when recognizing that your religious beliefs are those of a social order, not a moral order, in labeling amoral actions as moral or immoral and placing upon them rewards or consequences.<br /><br />I ask you one thing and I ask it VERY politely: Keep your household religion in your household where it belongs. Keep it out of my household, where I am gladly and appropriately holding the man I love in my arms, causing you no real or measurable harm according to my own religious beliefs.<br /><br />-RJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-10920239652716384152010-10-18T18:11:22.389-04:002010-10-18T18:11:22.389-04:00Louis is a puppet, a robot stuck on one response a...Louis is a puppet, a robot stuck on one response and one response only. No amount of reasoning with him in any logical manner will reach him because he is programmed to respond one way only.JThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057132276008655913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-76682449139215965092010-10-10T20:31:12.436-04:002010-10-10T20:31:12.436-04:00"Those benefits were established in hopes to ..."Those benefits were established in hopes to encourage and assist in, the creation of a family."<br /><br />That's a totally bogus argument. The creation of a family is not a requirement of marriage...you know that and I know that...so let's simply drop it..because it doesn't fly. <br /><br />"Therefore, you can't say that your homosexuality "negates" you from being eligible. It's the person you see to marry that negates your eligibility.<br /><br />And that's wrong, and I can't believe you won't admit that. Just as it was wrong to tell, a person he or she could not marry someone of another race. It's a bias based not in reason but in bigotry.<br /><br />"The same thing would happen to me if I sought to marry someone while I was currently married, although separated."<br /><br />So...you're comparing marriage equality to bigamy?<br /><br />"The same thing would happen to me if I sought to marry a close-blood relative.<br /><br />And now you compare marriage equality to incest?<br /><br />"The same thing would happen to me if I sought to marry a child (in this country)"<br /><br />And you compare marriage equality to pedophilia? Gosh Louis...thanks...and yet you keep saying you don't hold any prejudices against homosexuals. Why do I not believe that?<br /><br />"There are regulations and eligibility requirements for marriage and if you meet them, regardless of your sexual orientation you will be permitted to marry."<br /><br />NOT TRUE...I meet all the requirements for marriage...but because of my sexual orientation not "regardless of it" I am NOT permitted to marry...unless you are suggesting that gay men and women enter into sham marriages to heterosexuals,or that lesbians should marry gay men and vice versa if they want to get married? Well that certainly blows the "sanctity of marriage" argument right out the window doesn't it?Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-2963005989100078532010-10-10T08:28:18.310-04:002010-10-10T08:28:18.310-04:00Your sexual orientation does not disqualify you in...Your sexual orientation does not disqualify you in of itself. The "benefits" that come with a marriage contract are not just arbitrarily given.<br /><br />Those benefits were established in hopes to encourage and assist in, the creation of a family. <br /><br />There is no question about sexual orientation on a marriage license, nor is it asked throughout the marriage process. <br /><br />Therefore, you can't say that your homosexuality "negates" you from being eligible. It's the person you see to marry that negates your eligibility. <br /><br />The same thing would happen to me if I sought to marry someone while I was currently married, although separated. <br /><br />The same thing would happen to me if I sought to marry a close-blood relative.<br /><br />The same thing would happen to me if I sought to marry a child (in this country). <br /><br />There are regulations and eligibility requirements for marriage and if you meet them, regardless of your sexual orientation you will be permitted to marry.Louis J. Marinellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15308380959526067415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-20916878161290825482010-10-10T08:03:32.495-04:002010-10-10T08:03:32.495-04:00The fact that it's of the "People" i...The fact that it's of the "People" is the reason why homosexual's should have the same rights as all other law abiding citizens. Equal justice under the law.<br /><br />Do all of these "people" get to vote on every single piece of legislation? NO! they do not...do they get to vote every time a court rules a law unconstitutional? NO! they do not. <br /><br />Basic civil and human rights should not be put to a vote. Especially rights that involve a minority. It's ridiculous on the face of it to give a majority that much power over a minority.<br /><br />"You are a tax-paying, law-abiding-citizen but that doesn't mean you are eligible for every government benefit that is out there."<br /><br />But, being a homosexual, should not negate me from being eligible for those benefits. Again...homosexuality is not illegal. And no one has yet to prove that allowing homosexuals to marry will in any way harm the institution of marriage.Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-16671104319796771132010-10-10T07:26:30.266-04:002010-10-10T07:26:30.266-04:00Homosexuality is not illegal and I take no issue w...Homosexuality is not illegal and I take no issue with the sexual lifestyle people engage in in their own bedroom. <br /><br />However, marriage is a contract to which the government is a party. The government is "of the people, for the people and by the people", thus, the people have a say in the terms of said contract. <br /><br />Likewise, 31 out of 31 times the people decided that such marriage contract should be between a man and a woman. <br /><br />You are a tax-paying, law-abiding-citizen but that doesn't mean you are eligible for every government benefit that is out there. <br /><br />Government benefits are very often subject to eligibility requirements. And we've established that there is no constitutional right to marry.Louis J. Marinellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15308380959526067415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-72543694053358344282010-10-10T06:55:22.405-04:002010-10-10T06:55:22.405-04:00You didn't...and that's the point.
Since ...You didn't...and that's the point.<br /><br />Since there's no constitutional right for anyone to marry...then we ALL should be treated equally under state and local laws...not just heterosexuals.<br /><br />Homosexuality is NOT illegal. So...we as tax paying law abiding citizens should have the same rights as Heterosexual law abiding citizens. <br /><br />Even convicted Heterosexual felons...can get married while being incarcerated. Where is the justice in that? There is a heterosexual bias in the laws...and it needs to be removed.Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-47319645694344445352010-10-09T14:53:38.721-04:002010-10-09T14:53:38.721-04:00We just went through the Prop 8 trial where Charle...We just went through the Prop 8 trial where Charles Cooper, the ADF and the whole pro-Prop 8 team could not provide proof to ANY of their claims. Do you really think that courts work without evidence? Without credible witnesses? With only people who think it's a popularity contest and also must cater to a fleeting religious fringe that have no idea that they are a shrinking unity?Bob Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01899133074546542234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-74854621793633635922010-10-09T10:00:53.443-04:002010-10-09T10:00:53.443-04:00Taylor, when did I imply that the Constitution giv...Taylor, when did I imply that the Constitution gives anyone the right to marry?Louis J. Marinellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15308380959526067415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-35426985230677512912010-10-09T07:15:05.456-04:002010-10-09T07:15:05.456-04:00Which article in the Constitution gives you the &q...Which article in the Constitution gives you the "right" to marry, Louis?Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-53803448273860619252010-10-08T10:45:13.352-04:002010-10-08T10:45:13.352-04:00Same-sex marriage is not a right and marriage itse...Same-sex marriage is not a right and marriage itself has been regulated throughout time so I don't agree with the premise of your question about which one of my "rights" should we put to a ballot.Louis J. Marinellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15308380959526067415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5810329673334849395.post-7310788880237816292010-10-07T19:18:04.779-04:002010-10-07T19:18:04.779-04:00I just have the same question for you that I alway...I just have the same question for you that I always ask, Louis: which of *your* rights shall we put on the ballot for a whimsical majority to determine?<br /><br />Bless your heart, Louis.<br /><br />Fiona64Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com