Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Where is your movement to abolish legal marriage altogether? It's non-existent. That's why I do not support it.

There is a movement for legal gay marriage or union, I am in favour because it at least allows equality. Nothing in this world is perfect.

Precisely! You oxymoronically call for a "movement" - and we can only assume you mean a group - a collective - fighting for individual rights, and since you can not discern any "movement" - and again we assume you mean collective - then you do not support individual rights. No explanation was needed, this was all ready clear.

I am not arguing for the abolition of "legal marriage", I am arguing in defense of individual rights, among them, the right to marry without gaining permission from the state. Your zealotry for your little religious movement is a right, but you do not have the right to impose your religious beliefs upon others and particularly you cannot use government as a means to do it.

Your church you call the "gay movement" is your church, and I respect your right to worship at this church whenever your conscience dictates you do so, but your right to exercise religious "gay movement" ceremonies stops the moment you deign to abrogate and/or derogate the rights of others.

No individual needs a collective in order to assert their unalienable rights. The collective does not have supremacy over the individual, and this collective could not even exist without the individual, but the individual can, and does exist without the collective.

Further, while group rights certainly do exist, they can never at any point supersede the rights of any individual, anymore than an individuals right can supersede the rights of a group. Rights do not supersede other rights.

Even further, the use of the phrase "legal marriage" comes with both express and implicit rules. In order for a marriage to be "legal" to begin with, it must first be "illegal". This is express. Implicit is that whatever statute or ordinance that has declared marriage "Illegal" must either be repealed, or failing that, some sort of licensing scheme put in place in order to allow people to get married.

Any legislation enacted - and an amendment to the Constitution does not make this legislative act any more sacrosanct - that violates an individuals right is not lawful. If it is not lawful then it cannot stand as Constitutional, either federally or by a state in the Union. No person, and certainly no group has the lawful authority to tell me that my wife and I are not "legally married" simply because we opted out of the licensing scheme. Neither I, nor my wife need any approval or "support" from your quaint little religious order you like to call the "gay movement".

Demanding individuals join a group in order to gain legitimacy as individuals is beyond absurd.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I am not arguing for the abolition of "legal marriage", I am arguing in defense of individual rights, among them, the right to marry without gaining permission from the state. Your zealotry for your little religious movement is a right, but you do not have the right to impose your religious beliefs upon others and particularly you cannot use government as a means to do it.

Your church you call the "gay movement" is your church, and I respect your right to worship at this church whenever your conscience dictates you do so, but your right to exercise religious "gay movement" ceremonies stops the moment you deign to abrogate and/or derogate the rights of others.

No individual needs a collective in order to assert their unalienable rights. The collective does not have supremacy over the individual, and this collective could not even exist without the individual, but the individual can, and does exist without the collective.

It is so obvious what you're saying, and I can't understand what others aren't getting here. This is basic common law, versus corporate and corporate is fascism/slavery and crimes against humanity and crminal.

We have intrinsic unalieable rights.

If I of any sexual preference wish to freely consider myself married by my definition of it, to someone who shares this view, then we don't need a church ceremony, or government to bestow this right upon our inalielable and empowered selves. That would instead take away our empowerment and enslave us, make us stand under them, and be as children.

And if two same sex individuals do this, someone in a church may disapprove, but that couple does not "stand under" them and obey them as lesser beings, so they can only conduct their own free choices affecting themselves.

How much more clear does it need to be. Sovereignity is the only Legal way to exist as all other ways are SLAVERY.

Officer of the Law: Do you under stand?
Me: No officer, I do not stand under you, I am a peaceful real flesh and blood person, with unalieable rights.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I simply asked why if you were so concerned for the rights of the individual and that marriage or the legal joining of two people in a loving partnership should not be an institution of the state, that you are not lobbying your government and stating your case.

You dont have to be in a group to do this.

I do no "worship" homosexuality as you so incorrectly and arrogantly put it. I happen to be homosexual and would like the option of being legally joined with my partner, should I ever feel I want to be.

I'm assuming that you think homos all get together for tea parties and political meetings as though this is some kind of agreed upon, group effort with the same goal in mind? Not the case at all.

reply to post by Garfee

I simply asked why if you were so concerned for the rights of the individual and that marriage or the legal joining of two people in a loving partnership should not be an institution of the state, that you are not lobbying your government and stating your case.

Again with the oxymoron's! You may as well be asking me that if I am advocating individual rights why am I in favor of privileges that violate individual rights. It matters not if you are doing this out of obtuseness or if there is some more lascivious design.

Individuals do not need to lobby the government to gain protection of their individual rights - at least not here in the United States - because both the federal and state Constitutions that authorize government task that government with protecting individual rights. This is a fact of law. This is also a legal fact. The United States in its form does not have any lawful, nor legal authority to auction off rights to the highest bidder as you are clearly advocating.

I do no "worship" homosexuality as you so incorrectly and arrogantly put it. I happen to be homosexual and would like the option of being legally joined with my partner, should I ever feel I want to be.

I don't care what you worship, nor did I ever assert you did worship homosexuality. Your little religious order you call the "gay movement", on the other hand, is clearly a movement entrenched in dogma, has shown great proclivity in this thread to be exclusive while hypocritically calling for "Equal Rights", and boldly demands its adherents prepare for the day when they are offered up as sacrificial lambs to the alter". '

In a nation that has no Caesar's, you may as well be saying; "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", as you are surely advocating Caesar's.

I'm assuming that you think homos all get together for tea parties and political meetings as though this is some kind of agreed upon, group effort with the same goal in mind? Not the case at all.

If you spent less time assuming and more time honing critical thought you would probably not be digging the hole you are so hopelessly digging now. In your desperation to be a victim you have become the bully. Beware, bullies soon discover that not everyone cowers before them.

reply to post by Unity_99

How much more clear does it need to be. Sovereignity is the only Legal way to exist as all other ways are SLAVERY.

'

No sooner was the Thirteenth Amendment - prohibiting slavery - passed that the Fourteenth Amendment followed. Where one prohibited slaver, the other attempts to make slaves of us all.

There are those who claim that not everything is black and white, asserting that there are gray areas, but they ignore that gray is a mixture of black and white. The critical thinker knows that when confronted with a gray area, the hard work of separating the black from the white becomes necessary.

The critical thinker will not bother to peer through muddied waters and patiently wait for the water to settle so it is pristine again. While waiting for that water to clear, if someone comes and grabs a stick and stirs up the pond then lamenting they can't see the bottom because the water is muddied, patience becomes infinitely more difficult.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Well as a sovereign I don't give my power away and stand under them to define the grey areas, I'll do it myself.

Originally posted by Unity_99

It is so obvious what you're saying, and I can't understand what others aren't getting here. This is basic common law, versus corporate and corporate is fascism/slavery and crimes against humanity and crminal.

It doesn't matter whether I understand it or choose not to.

I am doing my best to ignore it.

It is not the subject of this thread.

DP

reply to post by Annee


Actually it is, for in a sense this ruling is setting people back in one way, in that they are standing under the judge. Whereas in reality, under common law, they already had the right to marry themselves, or another already had the right to chose to marry them under whatever ceremony they chose to conduct.

The issue of law and division of assets could be agreed upon before but the pension issues are tied into a state.

On that part I understand that for rules of some pensions and rights accorded others, that is where the state in financial matters handling tax payers money as mere employers should have always paid out to spouses, that they had no right to define, but the couple always had, as it is their intrinsic rights and not up to the state to determine this.

Its like choosing to fight for rights as slaves, OR, educating everyone and tackling these same rights from a soveriegn unaliable position, and continually doing this repeatedly across the nation until the wins occur.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Unity_99

It is so obvious what you're saying, and I can't understand what others aren't getting here. This is basic common law, versus corporate and corporate is fascism/slavery and crimes against humanity and crminal.

It doesn't matter whether I understand it or choose not to.

I am doing my best to ignore it.

It is not the subject of this thread.

Here is the title to this thread:

Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

The title clearly implies the subject of this thread is in regards to law and same sex marriage. Both Unity and myself have discussed just this subject, as have others you don't agree with. Your arbitrary and capricious assertions explain your politics.

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by Annee

 

Actually it is,

NO - - it isn't.

If you would like to start a thread on what your opinion of Legal Government Marriage is and invite Jean Paul to join you.

Please do so.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I don't care what you worship, nor did I ever assert you did worship homosexuality.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Your church you call the "gay movement" is your church, and I respect your right to worship at this church...

Speaking of digging holes...enough said.

Perhaps you meant that homosexuality is different to the gay movement? I've seen you call out semantics in other threads so I'll afford you the same.

If that is what you mean, I'd be interested what you think the gay movement is?



(Very clever making me out to be a bully and a victim, by the way. Perhaps read some of your choice words before throwing stones)

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by Annee

 

Actually it is,

NO - - it isn't.

If you would like to start a thread on what your opinion of Legal Government Marriage is and invite Jean Paul to join you.

Please do so.

Yes, it is. If it weren't for yours and others bullying of those you don't agree with attempting to push them out of this thread, I never would have posted to begin with. Your own tyranny drew me in. Otherwise I would have just quietly lurked with no compunction to add anything. The hypocrisy of pretending to be all for "Equal Rights" while endeavoring to chill speech that does not appear to be in any violation of T & C was something I could not ignore.

reply to post by Garfee

Perhaps you meant that homosexuality is different to the gay movement? I've seen you call out semantics in other threads so I'll afford you the same. If that is what you mean, I'd be interested what you think the gay movement is?

Homosexuality is obviously different from the "gay movement". You don't have a license to be gay do you? Watch out, that gay movement may demand you have one someday.

Religion defined:

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by Annee

 

Actually it is,

NO - - it isn't.

If you would like to start a thread on what your opinion of Legal Government Marriage is and invite Jean Paul to join you.

Please do so.

Yes, it is.

NO - it isn't.

I have no interest is reading your personal rants on how you feel about Legal Government Marriage. It is a completely different subject.

This thread is about the LEGAL RIGHT of Same-Sex couples to have the same Legal Government Marriage opposite couples already have.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux




Religion defined:

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I am homosexual, there is no faith needed beyond this point. Considering the pain and anguish most of us endure throughought the early part of our lives, ador would hardly be a correct term most of us would use to describe our sexuality.

You also fail to quote any definition of religion mentioning gods, worship, or that religion is institutionalized.

I think the issue is why can't I be legally married to my same-sex partner. Not why you want to save me from such subservience to the state.

reply to post by Annee

NO - it isn't. I have no interest is reading your personal rants on how you feel about Legal Government Marriage. It is a completely different subject.

YES - it is. No one is forcing you to read anything I post. The subject remains one of a judicial ruling regarding same sex marriage. You can attempt to twist that however you like, but I have read your O.P. and watched you waiver as you have after people began discussing matters of law and legality in a way you did not like. Suddenly the thread is no longer about what you originally posted but now is much more narrow in its scope. Hide behind this narrow scope all you want, you are clearly trying to suppress speech.

reply to post by Garfee

I am homosexual, there is no faith needed beyond this point.

I just made clear, and for purposes of clarification that you required, that there is obviously a difference between being homosexual, and this so called "gay movement".

Be as obtuse as you like, your faith is obviously in the licensing schemes and institutionalized marriage as a government "sanctioned" institution.

You also fail to quote any definition of religion mentioning gods, worship, or that religion is institutionalized.

Do you really need explained to you why? When I call your so called "gay movement" a religious order, I am relying upon number four of Websters definition. Now, did you truly need that one explained to you?

I think the issue is why can't I be legally married to my same-sex partner. Not why you want to save me from such subservience to the state.

Not just I, but others have explained this to you. In answer to the question of why you "can't" be legally married, it is because you do not have a right to be legally married. Being legally married is a privilege, and privileges by definition are exclusive not inclusive. You have no right to privilege. You do, however, have a right to marry.

Originally posted by Garfee
I think the issue is why can't I be legally married to my same-sex partner. Not why you want to save me from such subservience to the state.

Yes exactly.

It is about the RIGHT - - to be able to Legally marry.

What someone thinks marriage is - - has nothing to do with this subject.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
YES - it is. No one is forcing you to read anything I post.

You are not forcing me to read anything.

What marriage is - - what your opinion of Legal Government marriage is - - is NOT the subject of this discussing.

The RIGHT to Legal Marriage - - is the subject of this discussion.