• October 31, 2014

Nolanville reader praises Utah judge for ruling upholding gay marriage

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, December 28, 2013 4:30 am

To the Editor:

An Open Letter To The Honorable Judge Robert J. Shelby,

It’s Christmas Eve morning and I just read a tiny article in today’s Killeen Daily Herald: “Judge allows gay marriage in Utah to continue.”

I’m stopping to write a big THANK YOU to you!

If I were in Salt Lake City right now, I’d be holding a sign on the street corner hailing you as a champion for justice and equality, with the words: “Thank You to Federal Judge Shelby, a man of courage.” No matter what happens to your ruling, you stood for justice and equality. Never doubt the difference your ruling made.

In Texas, we are denied the right to marry. We are denied equal respect under the law. We are thousands of second-class Texans paying first-class taxes, held to the same standards of state laws, while denied the rights and protections most Texans enjoy.

After 29 years together, my partner and I were finally married in Washington state in July, only to return to Central Texas where our marriage license means nothing. Yet according to federal law, we are indeed legally married.

As a public school teacher, I understand that love knows no color, or disability, or religion. What a miracle LOVE is! Conditions like age, status, power, or even gender, are NOT prerequisites to love. No barriers or state boundaries and legislative laws can control, minimize or exclude the love of committed same-sex couples and families. Love is love.

You understand this, Your Honor, and my hope for 2014 is that the good people of Texas will also understand and be courageous enough to bring equal justice to all its families and citizens, through the courts, the legislative process and by their vote.

It is time for Texas to follow federal law.

Irene Andrews

Nolanville

More about

More about

More about

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

35 comments:

  • Gary Caraway posted at 10:05 pm on Thu, Jan 9, 2014.

    Gary Caraway Posts: 41

    Well, during this discussion I have been called a dope smoker, a loon, a Kool aid drinker, a hateful anti-Christian, a traitor, unAmerican, and (I think) a homosexual. All imagined and all not true like the false arguments used to support bigotry. Even though there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual, I just happen to be a heterosexual WASP.

    How it can be considered oppressive to heterosexuals to stop oppressing the rights of homosexuals is beyond my comprehension. There is no special protected class of citizenry here. This is simple equality. Equal protection under the laws as stated in the 14th amendment. Because you don't like certain amendments in the constitution and some of the Supreme courts' rulings it doesn't give you the authority to "Dismiss" them. Now that's some arrogance.

    Your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. Your final "Shame on you" carrys as much weight as the "Nanny Goats, Nanny Goats" argument.

    During the history of the USA we have had laws and presidential executive orders that were contrary to the freedoms and liberties we try to preserve in our constitution. Slavery, the Indian Removal act, and the Internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII to name a few.

    To be fair, I too have called you names. You will always be anonymous cartoon
    caricatures of an extreme ideology. Someones' alter ego that doesn't have
    the courage of his/her convictions to sign his/her name.

     
  • Bubba posted at 11:46 am on Thu, Jan 9, 2014.

    Bubba Posts: 727

    You're welcome. There is nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law is silent on marriage as it is not a civil right; it is a privilege granted by the state.

    Accordingly, arrogant, oppressive persons like you are violating our Constitution by trying to illegally create a protected class of citizens in order to oppress citizens into accepting your personal choice of lifestyle.

    Try looking in that mirror.

    Your references to the "fundamental right" of marriage are DISMISSED. Marriage is not a civil right protected by the Constitution, and your attempts to make it so are Unconstitutional, arrogant, and oppressive.

    You seek special rights over your fellow citizens and you are attacking the Constitution with intent to set it aside to boot. A review of the United States Code calls this behavior SEDITION. I suggest you go look that up.

    In closing, thank you for making my point so eloquently; that you and your friends are arrogant, oppressive law-breakers willfully misrepresenting the laws of our land in your efforts to pigeon-hole yourselves into special rights. And you are willing to publicly attack others with your phoney-baloney claims and "references" to do it. Shame on you. You're UnAmerican in my book, and you're free to leave both this state and the country and take your arrogant, intolerant oppression with you.

    This is my last interaction with you. Have a nice day.

     
  • Gary Caraway posted at 7:25 pm on Tue, Jan 7, 2014.

    Gary Caraway Posts: 41

    Thank-you for tolerating my ignorance. I could not find anything in the Civil Rights act of 1964 on marriage. I did find the following on marriage being a fundamental right.

    The United States Supreme Court has in at least 14 cases since 1888 ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. These cases are:[38]

    1.Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

    2.Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

    3.Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) Marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man” and “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

    4.Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

    5.Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

    6.Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

    7.Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974) “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    8.Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

    9.Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977) “[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

    10.Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

    11.Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

    12.Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
    13.M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

    14.Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

     
  • Bubba posted at 10:04 am on Tue, Jan 7, 2014.

    Bubba Posts: 727

    Here in America, you have the right to be wrong, particularly when it suits your personal desires that contradict the Constitution and well-settled law. You don't have the right to demand that your wrongness be made policy.

    This matter was put on hold by an appellate court as clearly the lower court misstepped.

    Marriage is NOT A CIVIL RIGHT. SEE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.

     
  • Gary Caraway posted at 8:46 pm on Mon, Jan 6, 2014.

    Gary Caraway Posts: 41

    I understand that the majority of states treat marriage as a privilege that they grant. I must respectfully disagree that those states have the authority to do so. Laws banning inter-racial marriage, use of contraceptives, and sodomy have all been found to be unconstitutional and struck down. They have been found contrary to the 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments. These individual state laws oppressing the homosexuals' right to same sex marriage are soon to be struck down. Same sex marriage will be legal everwhere in the USA as it is in Canada.

    I can tolerate other views. What I've always had a problem with is oppression.

     
  • Bubba posted at 9:36 am on Sun, Jan 5, 2014.

    Bubba Posts: 727

    Marriage is not a civil right, it is a privilege granted by the state. Like a driver's license. There is no inherent right to marry. Since many writers here are uncomfortable near people who think differently than they do, and are incapable of tolerating other views, they are free to go to a state that tolerates their views. The roads are open.

     
  • Bubba posted at 9:32 am on Sun, Jan 5, 2014.

    Bubba Posts: 727

    Arrogance, narcissism, and personal attacks are not arguments.

     
  • Bubba posted at 9:28 am on Sun, Jan 5, 2014.

    Bubba Posts: 727

    Marriage is not a civil right. Go read the Constitution.

     
  • Bubba posted at 9:27 am on Sun, Jan 5, 2014.

    Bubba Posts: 727

    Not true at all. This is demonstrate by our military service, in which we served with all backgrounds. So your attempt to paint us with your brush of arrogant, intolerant liberalism and project your obvious personality defects onto us is dismissed. The personal attack is the playground of those without an argument or intellect, or both.

     
  • Bubba posted at 9:25 am on Sun, Jan 5, 2014.

    Bubba Posts: 727

    No, it isn't. Persons have no inherent right to marry as this is a right granted by the state. Your arguments are dismissed. The very references you make actually prohibit the establishment of phoney-baloney protected classes, which is what you are trying to do. This is also dismissed, as this is patently Unconstitutional. You need to move to a country where your views are accepted and stop threatening Constitution protecting Americans.

     
  • Mamma Griz posted at 5:45 am on Sun, Jan 5, 2014.

    Mamma Griz Posts: 257

    Why on God's green earth do some people equate marriage with sex? Sex isn't the only reason that two people get married. Ever heard of COMPANIONSHIP? Just because two men marry each other doesn't mean that they want sex. They might just want companionship and love. And they should be able to find companionship and love with the partner of their choice. I guess in some male's view it is a sin to find companionship with the person you want-- but it is OK to jump in bed with your neighbor's wife. After all it is a female.

     
  • Gary Caraway posted at 11:44 pm on Sat, Jan 4, 2014.

    Gary Caraway Posts: 41

    I am a Christian. I don't hate Christians. I don't smoke dope. You are right that I don't give creedence to a pseudo scholastic Catechism manifesto. I'm one of millions of protestants created from the corruption of the old Catholic church. I try to live my life in accordance with Jesus' message of love and tolerance, self sacrifice, and loving my neighbor as myself. I don't discriminate against or try to oppress or deny my fellow citizens their constitutional rights. I sign my name to my opinions.

     
  • Bubba posted at 6:05 pm on Sat, Jan 4, 2014.

    Bubba Posts: 727

    Too bad Irene has never read the Constitution. That's the document I "get".

     
  • Bubba posted at 6:04 pm on Sat, Jan 4, 2014.

    Bubba Posts: 727

    They are not entitled to marry each other as a marriage is defined by law as one between persons of the opposite sex only. They are not entitled to phoney-baloney protected class status based upon their lifestyle choices. They are not entitled to shove their personal and political agendas down our throats, which revolve around passing laws that punish citizens for objecting to their special rights, which are quintessentially Unconstitutional. No, they are not entitled to these things.

     
  • Dr Strangelove posted at 1:19 am on Sat, Jan 4, 2014.

    Dr Strangelove Posts: 525

    Case Closed. Gary has proved my point, hateful anti-Christian and doesn’t’ want to listen to medical facts about disordered sexual behavior. BTW I didn’t read your rants.

     
  • Gary Caraway posted at 10:37 pm on Fri, Jan 3, 2014.

    Gary Caraway Posts: 41

    I looked up "Drinking the Kool-aid. What a great metaphor. It's powerful. Call someone a name and say drinking Kool-aid and the case is closed.

    i.e." Leftwing loon—drinking the Kool-Aid."

    The funny thing is that being told I drink Kool-aid by someone who espouses Catholic values, is like the Pot calling the Kettle black. Who has more "Kool-aid" than the Catholic church. Centuries of Kool-aid.

    I was just introduced to Catechism Kool-aid flavor 2357 (oppress homosexual rights).

    Then there's the Kool-aid of the visitation of Mary. (Fetus of John the Baptist in the womb recognizes fetus of Jesus in the womb).

    Then there was the Kool-aid of the Inquisition. (This Kool-aid has been reworked into flavor 2357.)

    Then there was the Kool-aid of paying your dead relatives out of Purgatory.

    Then there is the Kool-aid of Transubstantiation.

    Then if you don't like these rules, there is the Kool-aid of excommunication. (Damned to Hell for eternity.)

    With a track record like that they have to be right about the oppression of The Homo sexuals rights.

    Irene didn't cover this but legalized gay marriage will give them rights like Social Security benefits, Child care tax credits, Family and Medical leave to take care of their loved ones, COBRA, and equal American Citizenship.

     
  • Gary Caraway posted at 10:44 pm on Thu, Jan 2, 2014.

    Gary Caraway Posts: 41

    I support the inherent right of LGBT American citizens to marry their same sex love. I have gay and lesbian friends. I have a member of my extended family that's gay. The US constitution is supposed to secure its citizens rights. This group is singled out by certain state governments and barred from enjoying their 14th amendment rights.

    How anyone can think what I have written below supports their position of anti same sex marriage is beyond me. I should expect it from an anonymous commenter.

     
  • Baylor posted at 8:55 pm on Thu, Jan 2, 2014.

    Baylor Posts: 172

    Who cares, long as they both work make an honest living and mow their lawn leave em alone.

     
  • Dr Strangelove posted at 8:51 am on Thu, Jan 2, 2014.

    Dr Strangelove Posts: 525

    Let the record show typical leftwing loon—drinking the Kool-Aid. Your comments make my case.

     
  • Gary Caraway posted at 9:42 pm on Wed, Jan 1, 2014.

    Gary Caraway Posts: 41

    I didn't attack a man or a person. I'm having a conversation with a cartoon. As crazy as that sounds, you are no more than a caricature of an ideology. An alter ego of some cartoonist. I wonder if you are the only one, or one of many in his/her stable of characters.

    The Pope does not rule this country. The Ayatollah and the Pope do not hold court in the USA. Ulamas and priests do not dictate their religious beliefs to American citizens. There is no canonical fiat. We don't need no stinking fiats. American citizens' rights should not be oppressed by some bigoted and fallible religious doctrine. The Catholic church was wrong about Copernicus and Galileo. They are wrong about homosexuals. They had their dogmas in the 16th century and obviously they have their dogmas today.

    Now, my name is Gary Caraway. I was born in America at the University of Kansas Medical center. I am a real person.

    Dr. Strangelove is a character created by Stanley Kubrick an Peter George. This character was a German Nazi scientist that advised the US president on how to survive thermo-nuclear war. He is only make believe. Make believe people's opinions aren't worth the cyber-space they are written on.

     
  • Dr Strangelove posted at 11:41 am on Wed, Jan 1, 2014.

    Dr Strangelove Posts: 525

    Don’t have real facts so attack the person typical liberal tactic:
    Gary what I told you is fact I figured you’re on pot or drunk to compare disordered sexual behavior to the Second Amendment—pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    Also homosexuals need to stop justifying their sinful acts by calling it LOVE! Just because the homosexual lobby paid off mental health professionals to take homosexuality off the disordered list does not make it right—the Church in her wisdom knows this.

    Being a homosexual is not a sin but having homosexual relations [sex acts] is sinful. Below is what the Church teaches on homosexuality:

    Catechism Of The Catholic Church
    Chastity and homosexuality
    2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarily. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

    2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

     
  • Gary Caraway posted at 8:38 pm on Tue, Dec 31, 2013.

    Gary Caraway Posts: 41

    You know you are hearing from the National Brain Trust, when someone that has not one whit of information about me calls me a dope smoker. Then he pulls, " God overrules the Constitution", out of his information bank. (This is the legal evidence to discriminate against our fellow Americans???) Well, "Blessed are the pure of heart: for they shall see God."

    What I believe, whether you're Liberal or conservative, is if you don't have the courage of your convictions to sign your name to your opinions, then they're not worth the cyber space they are written on. Do these anonymous commenters think they must remain anonymous because what they write would be harmful to their personal and or professional reputation? Maybe they just get their "Kicks" Sniping at others from the shadows of anonymity?

    To Irene: "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets before you." (From the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ)

     
  • irene andrews posted at 11:27 pm on Mon, Dec 30, 2013.

    irene andrews Posts: 9

    Thank you truebluebell. Glad to know some of us get it!

     
  • irene andrews posted at 11:25 pm on Mon, Dec 30, 2013.

    irene andrews Posts: 9

    ... I know from experience that we have no guarantee of equality even after all the extra time and legal expense! "By blood or marriage" is the LAW of the land in Texas and we have neither. Hence, we pay first-class taxes to be treated as second-class citizens. Please don't offer me crumbs under your table or try to placate me with a meaningless union, because when a partner dies, a blood relative can come take the house you bought together, and when it comes to the funeral, you have no say, because no one need recognize you exist. In the eyes of the state of Texas, you have no rights- you were just a 'long-time companion' so go away and let the blood relatives grieve their loss...” Being treated this way not only STINKS, it is harmful and devastating, both emotionally and financially. It is not anywhere near equal treatment under the law. Are you saying it is OK that some U.S. citizens should be less than equal? That's counter to our U.S. Constitution.

     
  • truebluebell posted at 8:19 pm on Mon, Dec 30, 2013.

    truebluebell Posts: 17

    Bubba,
    I agree with you. Homosexuals are not entitled to any additional rights, privileges or protections than heterosexuals. They are entitled to the same rights, the right to marry, the right to visit their spouse and make medical decisions.They are entitled to jobs and education without harassment or discrimination. They are entitled to a church wedding if they choose or to elope to Vegas. They are entitled to the same rights you enjoy everyday, no more, no less. It is time for Texas to recognize that.

     
  • irene andrews posted at 2:52 pm on Mon, Dec 30, 2013.

    irene andrews Posts: 9

    Thanks Gary, I appreciate your support!

     
  • irene andrews posted at 2:50 pm on Mon, Dec 30, 2013.

    irene andrews Posts: 9

    Those who continue to refer to a person's sexual orientation as a "choice" or a "lifestyle" are mistaken due to their ignorance. Who I am is not a "chosen lifestyle". I was born this way and God does not make mistakes. You don't wake up and say, "I am going to choose to be straight and I'll make myself be attracted to the opposite sex." Sounds crazy and it is! The fact is, I am Lesbian, and you are Straight: end of story.
    What is crazy is that you somehow think you should decide whom I can love and marry. I don't demand control over whom you marry. I ask that I have the same freedom to marry as you do. This is NOT more rights or special rights, but EQUAL rights. Your marriage may have taken place in a religious setting: I respect your choice. But marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT, performed every day by CIVIL servants and a CIVIL court or county official issues a marriage license. (There is a reason for separation of church and state: religious beliefs are protected as such, but are not civil law).
    A 'union' is not the same as getting married. Federal laws recognize a marriage license, not a union license. Benefits and protections go to married couples and the surviving spouses of the married couple, automatically. Not so for partners in a union. Legal paperwork, arduous hoops to jump through and hurdles to clear are totally unnecessary when you are married. I know from experience that we have no guarantee of equality even after all the extra time and legal expense! "By blood or marriage" is the LAW of the land in Texas and we have neither. Hence, we pay first-class taxes to be treated as second-class citizens. Please don't offer me crumbs under your table or try to placate me with a meaningless union, because when a partner dies, a blood relative can come take the house you bought together, and when it comes to the funeral, you have no say, because no one need recognize you exist. In the eyes of the state of Texas, you have no rights- you were just a 'long-time companion' so go away and let the blood relatives grieve their loss...” Being treated this way not only STINKS, it is harmful and devastating, both emotionally and financially. It is not anywhere near equal treatment under the law. Are you saying it is OK that some U.S. citizens should be less than equal? That's counter to our U.S. Constitution.

     
  • irene andrews posted at 2:49 pm on Mon, Dec 30, 2013.

    irene andrews Posts: 9

    Those who continue to refer to a person's sexual orientation as a "choice" or a "lifestyle" are mistaken due to their ignorance. Who I am is not a "chosen lifestyle". I was born this way and God does not make mistakes. You don't wake up and say, "I am going to choose to be straight and I'll make myself be attracted to the opposite sex." Sounds crazy and it is! The fact is, I am Lesbian, and you are Straight: end of story.
    What is crazy is that you somehow think you should decide whom I can love and marry. I don't demand control over whom you marry. I ask that I have the same freedom to marry as you do. This is NOT more rights or special rights, but EQUAL rights. Your marriage may have taken place in a religious setting: I respect your choice. But marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT, performed every day by CIVIL servants and a CIVIL court or county official issues a marriage license. (There is a reason for separation of church and state: religious beliefs are protected as such, but are not civil law).
    A 'union' is not the same as getting married. Federal laws recognize a marriage license, not a union license. Benefits and protections go to married couples and the surviving spouses of the married couple, automatically. Not so for partners in a union. Legal paperwork, arduous hoops to jump through and hurdles to clear are totally unnecessary when you are married. I know from experience that we have no guarantee of equality even after all the extra time and legal expense! "By blood or marriage" is the LAW of the land in Texas and we have neither. Hence, we pay first-class taxes to be treated as second-class citizens. Please don't offer me crumbs under your table or try to placate me with a meaningless union, because when a partner dies, a blood relative can come take the house you bought together, and when it comes to the funeral, you have no say, because no one need recognize you exist. In the eyes of the state of Texas, you have no rights- you were just a 'long-time companion' so go away and let the blood relatives grieve their loss...” Being treated this way not only STINKS, it is harmful and devastating, both emotionally and financially. It is not anywhere near equal treatment under the law. Are you saying it is OK that some U.S. citizens should be less than equal? That's counter to our U.S. Constitution.

     
  • Dr Strangelove posted at 7:38 am on Mon, Dec 30, 2013.

    Dr Strangelove Posts: 525

    Jane and Gary don’t get it. I supported homosexuals in the military I support same sex unions but not Marriage. Marriage is a Sacrament from God between a Man and a Woman. God overrules the Constitution. Every time people are against disordered marriage you people pull out the race card “People not like them.” Oh please give me a break a sexual disorder is the same as owning a gun—get off the pot you’re smoking and sober up man.

     
  • JaneVP posted at 4:14 pm on Sun, Dec 29, 2013.

    JaneVP Posts: 1

    Ah, yes, the Dr. Strangeloves, Dawgdaves, and Bubbas can't be comfortable amid people not just exactly like them...

     
  • Gary Caraway posted at 2:03 pm on Sun, Dec 29, 2013.

    Gary Caraway Posts: 41

    ....equal protection under the laws.

    US Constitution. Amendment XIV. Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAWS.

    Denying a citizen the right to marry whomever they choose is the same as denying a citizen the right to vote or own a gun.

    If you do not support the US constitution for all citizens maybe you should move to a country that has codified inequality for its citizens.

     
  • Dr Strangelove posted at 11:35 am on Sat, Dec 28, 2013.

    Dr Strangelove Posts: 525

    It's time for you to move to Utah.

     
  • DawgDave posted at 10:46 am on Sat, Dec 28, 2013.

    DawgDave Posts: 160

    I highly recommend you move to Utah.

     
  • Bubba posted at 8:34 am on Sat, Dec 28, 2013.

    Bubba Posts: 727

    Acceptance of lifestyle choices is not a civil or Constitutional right.

    Homosexuals are not entitled to any additional rights, privileges or protections than anyone else under the law. This is not a protected class of citizens.

    Allowing any special rights or protections to anyone for any reason is Unconstitutional and a violation of the rights of the rest of the community.

     
  • texasgoat posted at 7:59 am on Sat, Dec 28, 2013.

    texasgoat Posts: 50

    A few years ago I remember being rejected by society as disgusting because I smoked.

     

Featured Events