Skip to comments.True ZOT, For All Americans
Posted on 11/04/2011 10:55:20 AM PDT by merryandrew
It has been 47 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and 46 years since the passage of the Voting Rights Act. And yet the political leaders of this nation of liberty cannot seem to muster the courage and principle to sweep away one remaining example of institutionalized, government-sanctioned discrimination: The 1996 law that denies the right of marriage to same-sex couples.
The law, the Defense of Marriage Act, was passed in the heat of election-year fear and bigotry against men who want to marry other men, and women who want to marry other women.
It was a bipartisan act of cruelty, sponsored initially by Republicans but passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. It was then, and still is, unconstitutional, because it violates the principles of federalism by allowing states to refuse to recognize marriages performed in other states and because it is blatantly discriminatory....
(Excerpt) Read more at loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com ...
They're going to start fretting about this "federalism" bullsh*t now?
Gay Marriage is not a civil rights issue.
One of the Communist Party planks is to break down the American Family.
Neither party pays much attention to federalism, really....
For what its worth, there is no "right to marry." Its a privilege and states have always had the authority to decide who gets to have that privilege. Andrew Rosenthal is as obsequious as he is stupid. And DOMA was simply an expression of the country's long-standing interest in affirming traditional marriage is the foundation of the basic building block of society, the family.
No one has been harmed by DOMA.
Gays have the exact same marriage rights as everyone else does.
Neither is traditional marriage.
Marriage is not a right or an entitlement. Its a serious undertaking between a man and a woman. Moreover, its a sacred vow between them and God.
But its just like liberals to trivialize the serious these days because they have deep contempt for the accumulated wisdom of the ages.
No one has the right to marry any one.
And none of us have the right to marry the dead or our pets.
Errors like yours are in need of correction. Some conservatives fail to grasp the difference between a privilege and a right.
What the homosexuals are looking for is the financial booty that we give to married couples (in whatever form and however small) to aid the formation and raising of families.
But even more, they want the stamp, the imprimateur of respectabilty and encouragement they feel government approval would give them.
Marriage is a civil and a religious privilege.
Proof that its a privilege is demonstrated by the fact the union can be dissolved if the privilege is not exercised properly or has been abused, by the act of divorce.
Thus, marriage can be withdrawn from those who have freely entered into it. In contrast, a right can never be suspended or revoked.
Correction: The US was founded on religious (and other) liberty.
Huh? The right to vote and the right to bear arms, for example, are routinely taken away from convicted felons (even after they finish their prison sentences).
What error? I said gays have the same marriage rights as everyone else - and that is true.That statement made no assertion as to the extent of the right merely that straights had no rights which gays don't. And yes, marriage is a God given right, it is not a privilege. Some conservatives fail to grasp that not every right we enjoy is specified in the Constitution, as the 9th amendment specifically points out.
I mean in general rights are absolute in nature for those who possess them but certain people are not allowed to exercise them, either because they have not reached a certain age, they committed a crime or they are not citizens of this country.
I was just SURE he was goijng to mention 'Affirmative Action'.
Shows what I know...
I was just SURE he was going to mention 'Affirmative Action'.
Shows what I know...
Marriage is not a right.
Go to some strange woman on the street and try imposing on her your “right” and see how far you get.
Again, certain forms of marriage have always been illegal and more over those who cannot enter freely into marriage are not allowed to marry at all.
That’s the way its always been.
And speaking of freedom, this guy belongs to that subset of mankind, who in every in other instance, wants to diminish freedom to the greatest extent possible.
Like freedom of association. We must be forced to give our blessing to a certain kind of association, whether we like it or not.
That’s how much liberals truly value the spirit of freedom.
That makes no sense at all. Your position is like saying, Try going to the New York Times and forcing them to publish your story and if they refuse then there must be no right to freedom of the press. Just because one has a right to marry doesn't mean that another person is obligated to marry them. Just as the right to publish doesn't mean someone else is obligated to give you their printing press. And all "rights" are subject to restrictions which is why freedom of speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater which isn't on fire.
You’re expecting logical consistency or something?
If there was a right to marry, all of us would be married.
We have the right to freedom of speech but we have no right to be heard.
The difference between a privilege and a right is that a privilege is conditional on the performance of certain obligations. A right is self-executing by nature. A privilege means we must abide by such and such to gain full benefit from it.
That’s true of a drivers’ license. Incidentally, all marriages are licensed, too. One has obligations to fulfill to validate the privilege.
Whoa now. I want my 2nd Amendment rights restored. This is an enumerated right, stripped away by decades of illegal legislation.
Marriage whether gay straight or polygamous or with animals is not an enumerated right (though it may be in the 10th Amendment, 2 comes before implied 10a rights).
Give me Vermont style carry laws. Then we can talk.
Exactly. Marriage is probably a right but implied not enumerated. Right to Keep and Bear arms is an enumerated right though. We Golden State Warriors have been disenfranchised. I want Vermont Style Carry first as is enumerated in 2A right to keep and bear (says nothing about permits, about discretion, about state police, about sheriffs etc). Then we talk about marriage as a right.
That makes no sense at all. It's like saying if there was a right to peacefully assemble all of us would be assembled somewhere. And I note the that the right to peacefully assemble is a group right. No individual can "peacefully assemble" - they need the cooperation of others to exercise this right. And the right to peacefully assemble can be conditioned on obtaining a license or permit if the group wants to assemble in certain places at cetain times. And not all marriages are licensed - some states still recognize common law marriage. So you are wrong on every assertion you made.
Marriage is the subject of state legislation. You can’t marry any one or anything, if it was a right.
I can’t marry my sister or my cousin even if I am in love with them.
what about the guy on Jerry springer who wanted to marry his horse? Or that other guy who wanted to divorce his wife and marry his TV set. Now that would be true equality if the Govmint would recognize the Jerry Springerites as equal to our mere politicians.
If there was a right to marry, there would never have been restrictions placed on it.
Liberals are seeking to sweep away one type of long-standing restriction. But one can argue then, if its a right, why can’t every else have it also?
Common law marriages are a type of marital privilege sanctioned by certain states. They could abolish it if they want to.
That can’t happen to a right for those eligible to exercise it. Hence the difference.
If liberals had the honesty of their convictions, they would say they’re in favor of extending discrimination a notch more, not to get rid of it.
But a vacuous and stupid poll-tested slogan like “Marriage Equality” sounds good.
If they get it their way, the fact remains some marriages will still be more equal than others.
Every other right has restrictions why would marriage be any different?
AS usual, the liberals are hypocrites about everything. There is literally no issue they hold so dearly (with perhaps abortion being the exception) that they will not be hypocritical about. Just look at the different way they have examined Herman Cain with a microscope and total lack of care they have about Obama’s relationship with KNOWN TERRORISTS.
Because marriage is a privilege. Not all of us are suited to handle it. With that privilege comes many responsibilities as well as of course conjugal pleasure.
Like others have said, everyone has equal marriage rights. Any single man can marry any willing single woman not his close relation.
Equality isn’t what homosexuals want. They want to change marriage so that the state sanctions destructive behavior.
Discouraging destructive behavior isn’t bigotry. It’s the action of a healthy society. Turning a blind eye to or sanctioning destructive behavior is the action of a dying society. This petulant blogger may get his wish but the society that grants it will be courting it’s own extinction.
To be added or removed from the Viking Kitty/ZOT Ping List, FReepmail Darkwing104
Wow. What a gay thread. :-D
Why, yes it is.
Today, Andrew Rosenthal is editorial page editor of The New York Times. In his biography, it is observed, “In 1964, he won the 3rd Grade Spelling Bee at Public School 183 in Manhattan, on the word ‘necessary’” (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/business/media/24askthetimes.html?pagewanted=all). On August 14, 2011, almost a decade following Frankel’s thoughtful piece, Rosenthal disseminated the following tweet(http://twitter.com/#!/andyrNYT):
“Perry announce speech. Did he miss a GOP cliche? One fave: Isreal [sic] won’t have to worry about him. As if it ever has to worry about a US prez.”
In the past, I have corresponded with Rosenthal concerning anti-Semitism, the op-ed page of the Times, and grotesque anti-Semitic readers’ comments posted by the Times online, some of which were removed by Rosenthal. Concerning Rosenthal’s snotty Twitter item, I would begin by observing that although he won a third grade spelling bee, he misspelled “Israel”.
“You owe me Respect!”
See Yuh . . . Biotch...
That should pretty much seal Satan’s plan you whackjob. Let’s just kill pro-creation and all will be jolly. What a nut you must be. Stay away from me. I promise to warn you
It's in the same category as "square circle", or "pregnant father".