Comments on: Why full marriage and equal rights are inevitable for homosexuals http://blueinredzion.com/2008/11/why-full-marriage-and-equal-rights-are-inevitable-for-homosexuals/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-full-marriage-and-equal-rights-are-inevitable-for-homosexuals Poorly Spelled, Properly Thought Out. Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:31:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: JM Bell http://blueinredzion.com/2008/11/why-full-marriage-and-equal-rights-are-inevitable-for-homosexuals/comment-page-1/#comment-99 JM Bell Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:23:00 +0000 http://saltlakecitywebdesign.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/why-full-marriage-and-equal-rights-are-inevitable-for-homosexuals/#comment-99 <b>AND!</b><br/><br/>Your wife's brother is your Brother-In-Law, not your Brother-In-The-State-Made-My-Pastor-Marry-A-Gay-Couple-Which-Is-Impossible-Because-The-State-Can't-Fkn-Do-That. AND!

Your wife’s brother is your Brother-In-Law, not your Brother-In-The-State-Made-My-Pastor-Marry-A-Gay-Couple-Which-Is-Impossible-Because-The-State-Can’t-Fkn-Do-That.

]]> By: JM Bell http://blueinredzion.com/2008/11/why-full-marriage-and-equal-rights-are-inevitable-for-homosexuals/comment-page-1/#comment-98 JM Bell Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:53:00 +0000 http://saltlakecitywebdesign.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/why-full-marriage-and-equal-rights-are-inevitable-for-homosexuals/#comment-98 Sure, Jesse, but precedence moves forward, not backward in time.<br/><br/>As time moves forward and the court has come around to a position of "citizen" meaning different than "man," then you may begin to see where Curtis is coming from on this, and, frankly, I agree with him.<br/><br/>It's risible homophobia and naked discrimination to draw a definition of "marriage" as only a religious thing when I have to pay the government to do it. I didn't have to pay the bishop to marry us, and if he'd walked out because he didn't like the crowd that is my friends, I would have had no recourse against him.<br/><br/>He's a religious entity and, therefore, can marry who he wants, when he wants.<br/><br/>Everything else is fear inspired horseshit.<br/><br/>That doesn't mean, Jesse, that I love you any less than I did six months ago. I just think you're hopelessly stupid and mean on this topic. <br/><br/>xoxoxo Sure, Jesse, but precedence moves forward, not backward in time.

As time moves forward and the court has come around to a position of “citizen” meaning different than “man,” then you may begin to see where Curtis is coming from on this, and, frankly, I agree with him.

It’s risible homophobia and naked discrimination to draw a definition of “marriage” as only a religious thing when I have to pay the government to do it. I didn’t have to pay the bishop to marry us, and if he’d walked out because he didn’t like the crowd that is my friends, I would have had no recourse against him.

He’s a religious entity and, therefore, can marry who he wants, when he wants.

Everything else is fear inspired horseshit.

That doesn’t mean, Jesse, that I love you any less than I did six months ago. I just think you’re hopelessly stupid and mean on this topic.

xoxoxo

]]> By: Jesse Harris http://blueinredzion.com/2008/11/why-full-marriage-and-equal-rights-are-inevitable-for-homosexuals/comment-page-1/#comment-97 Jesse Harris Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:37:00 +0000 http://saltlakecitywebdesign.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/why-full-marriage-and-equal-rights-are-inevitable-for-homosexuals/#comment-97 Interesting, but (I think) entirely flawed. I would refer you to Baker v. Nelson (1971) and the various lawsuits against DOMA that the Supreme Court has declined to hear. Baker specifically addressed the 14th Amendment argument on which you so heavily depend and dismissed it out-of-hand. There is no equal protection issue since all men have the same right to marry a woman (and vice-versa). Interesting, but (I think) entirely flawed. I would refer you to Baker v. Nelson (1971) and the various lawsuits against DOMA that the Supreme Court has declined to hear. Baker specifically addressed the 14th Amendment argument on which you so heavily depend and dismissed it out-of-hand. There is no equal protection issue since all men have the same right to marry a woman (and vice-versa).

]]>