I Have to Make a Confession

[clistensprechen]

Marriage is a civil right

Obama said it isn't and he's the smartest man ever.

Behold, friends n neighbors, that a con CAN actually agree with Obama!!!

(you may now proceed to knock me over with a feather)

[wbcoleman]

The error in your statement lies in the phrase "comparison that you are making between racism and gay marriage as a civil and human right" is the word "gay".

Marriage is a civil right to all races and all genders, and that includes "mixin'". Races, same or mixed; genders, same or mixed.

What is the source of this "civil right", aside from the imaginations of the people who assert it?

[kentay]

The error in your statement lies in the phrase "comparison that you are making between racism and gay marriage as a civil and human right" is the word "gay".

Marriage is a civil right to all races and all genders, and that includes "mixin'". Races, same or mixed; genders, same or mixed.

What is the source of this "civil right", aside from the imaginations of the people who assert it?

The 14th Amendment guarantees the right to marry. kentay

Marriage is a vital social institution. ? The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; ?it brings stability to our society. ? For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. ? In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. ? The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. ? We conclude that it may not. ? The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. ? It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. ? In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. ? But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,Suffolk.

[wbcoleman]

The error in your statement lies in the phrase "comparison that you are making between racism and gay marriage as a civil and human right" is the word "gay".

Marriage is a civil right to all races and all genders, and that includes "mixin'". Races, same or mixed; genders, same or mixed.

What is the source of this "civil right", aside from the imaginations of the people who assert it?

The 14th Amendment guarantees the right to marry. kentay

Really?  Which clause?

[kentay]

The error in your statement lies in the phrase "comparison that you are making between racism and gay marriage as a civil and human right" is the word "gay".

Marriage is a civil right to all races and all genders, and that includes "mixin'". Races, same or mixed; genders, same or mixed.

What is the source of this "civil right", aside from the imaginations of the people who assert it?

The 14th Amendment guarantees the right to marry. kentay

Really?  Which clause?

You are going to have to do some research for yourself. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. I gave you an example of what the SC said and the results, I can do no more for someone that will not help himself, sorry. Kentay

[wbcoleman]

The error in your statement lies in the phrase "comparison that you are making between racism and gay marriage as a civil and human right" is the word "gay".

Marriage is a civil right to all races and all genders, and that includes "mixin'". Races, same or mixed; genders, same or mixed.

What is the source of this "civil right", aside from the imaginations of the people who assert it?

The 14th Amendment guarantees the right to marry. kentay

Really?  Which clause?

You are going to have to do some research for yourself. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. I gave you an example of what the SC said and the results, I can do no more for someone that will not help himself, sorry. Kentay

There is no "civil right to marry" save in the fevered imagination of certain leftists.

[clistensprechen]

The error in your statement lies in the phrase "comparison that you are making between racism and gay marriage as a civil and human right" is the word "gay".

Marriage is a civil right to all races and all genders, and that includes "mixin'". Races, same or mixed; genders, same or mixed.

What is the source of this "civil right", aside from the imaginations of the people who assert it?

Marriage is a fabrication of the feudal age for the purpose of determining property rights and inheritance, an institution in which the state has an interest because of the necessity of adjudicating who gets what as an inheritance and how much of it gets taxed. It's not biblical, but its biblicality has been asserted in latter day "translations" of scripture, just as divine right to rule has been.

In these days where divorce is just as common among heteros as marriage is, the state has an interest, therefore, in non-traditional marriages and partnerships, again for the purpose of inheritance rights and taxation.

[clistensprechen]

Oh--and speaking of the failure rate of heterosexual marriages...heterosexuals don't have a leg to stand on preaching to anybody else about any alleged sanctity the institution of marriage may allegedly have. Homosexuals have traditionally given better examples of de facto marriage.

[wbcoleman]

The error in your statement lies in the phrase "comparison that you are making between racism and gay marriage as a civil and human right" is the word "gay".

Marriage is a civil right to all races and all genders, and that includes "mixin'". Races, same or mixed; genders, same or mixed.

What is the source of this "civil right", aside from the imaginations of the people who assert it?

Marriage is a fabrication of the feudal age for the purpose of determining property rights and inheritance, an institution in which the state has an interest because of the necessity of adjudicating who gets what as an inheritance and how much of it gets taxed. It's not biblical, but its biblicality has been asserted in latter day "translations" of scripture, just as divine right to rule has been.

In these days where divorce is just as common among heteros as marriage is, the state has an interest, therefore, in non-traditional marriages and partnerships, again for the purpose of inheritance rights and taxation.

Wait a minute.... You're claiming that marriage is an artifice of the medieval era? ? ?

[clistensprechen]

The error in your statement lies in the phrase "comparison that you are making between racism and gay marriage as a civil and human right" is the word "gay".

Marriage is a civil right to all races and all genders, and that includes "mixin'". Races, same or mixed; genders, same or mixed.

What is the source of this "civil right", aside from the imaginations of the people who assert it?

Marriage is a fabrication of the feudal age for the purpose of determining property rights and inheritance, an institution in which the state has an interest because of the necessity of adjudicating who gets what as an inheritance and how much of it gets taxed. It's not biblical, but its biblicality has been asserted in latter day "translations" of scripture, just as divine right to rule has been.

In these days where divorce is just as common among heteros as marriage is, the state has an interest, therefore, in non-traditional marriages and partnerships, again for the purpose of inheritance rights and taxation.

Wait a minute.... You're claiming that marriage is an artifice of the medieval era? ? ?

It's not a claim I'm making--it's an historical fact that I'm reporting. In the era of Constantine, only titled people married and the "droit du roi" was practiced (the king gets to screw every bride first before the husband got permission to). This didn't change until the emperor gave up land management to his suzerain kings under him and property inheritances became an issue...with the wife being part and parcel of the land assets to be handed off to the heir.

It wasn't until the 19th century that women began the quest to cease being regarded as a man's property....and the children, for that matter. Men always got custody of the children in a divorce until Child Labor Laws got passed. It was then that judicial entities regarded children as the sole providence of all women.  Not before.

[wbcoleman]

The error in your statement lies in the phrase "comparison that you are making between racism and gay marriage as a civil and human right" is the word "gay".

Marriage is a civil right to all races and all genders, and that includes "mixin'". Races, same or mixed; genders, same or mixed.

What is the source of this "civil right", aside from the imaginations of the people who assert it?

Marriage is a fabrication of the feudal age for the purpose of determining property rights and inheritance, an institution in which the state has an interest because of the necessity of adjudicating who gets what as an inheritance and how much of it gets taxed. It's not biblical, but its biblicality has been asserted in latter day "translations" of scripture, just as divine right to rule has been.

In these days where divorce is just as common among heteros as marriage is, the state has an interest, therefore, in non-traditional marriages and partnerships, again for the purpose of inheritance rights and taxation.

Wait a minute.... You're claiming that marriage is an artifice of the medieval era? ? ?

It's not a claim I'm making--it's an historical fact that I'm reporting. In the era of Constantine, only titled people married and the "droit du roi" was practiced (the king gets to screw every bride first before the husband got permission to). This didn't change until the emperor gave up land management to his suzerain kings under him and property inheritances became an issue...with the wife being part and parcel of the land assets to be handed off to the heir.

Well, excuse me, but the Mishnah [primary source of Jewish law] dates from roughly 200 C.E. and it has extensive chapters on marriage and divorce.

[clistensprechen]

That's nice for one religion, not practiced by everybody and never part of any secular law. Jews that were resident in Europe and Roman possessions were also subject to "droit du roi" upon pain of death.

And if Leviticus in Christianity matches up with that same book in Jewish scripture, women had exactly half the value of men in the lord's eyes. Try again.

[wbcoleman]

That's nice for one religion, not practiced by everybody and never part of any secular law.

And if Leviticus in Christianity matches up with that same book in Jewish scripture, women had exactly half the value of men in the lord's eyes. Try again.

You are such an ideologue!  The point is that marriage as an institution existed long before the medieval era.  You can't change that.

[clistensprechen]

That's nice for one religion, not practiced by everybody and never part of any secular law.

And if Leviticus in Christianity matches up with that same book in Jewish scripture, women had exactly half the value of men in the lord's eyes. Try again.

You are such an ideologue!  The point is that marriage as an institution existed long before the medieval era.  You can't change that.

King David begs to differ.

[wbcoleman]

That's nice for one religion, not practiced by everybody and never part of any secular law.

And if Leviticus in Christianity matches up with that same book in Jewish scripture, women had exactly half the value of men in the lord's eyes. Try again.

You are such an ideologue!  The point is that marriage as an institution existed long before the medieval era.  You can't change that.

King David begs to differ.

What do you mean, "King David begs to differ"?  Which of his sins do you think demonstrate that marriage as an institution didn't exist prior to the medieval era?