Defending the Truth

Let's start with the NY Court of Appeals ruling from July 2006:

"By limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, New York is not engaging in sex discrimination. The limitation does not put men and women in different classes, and give one class a benefit not given to the other.

Women and men are treated alike -- they are permitted to marry people of the opposite sex, but not people of their own sex.

This is not the kind of sham equality that the Supreme Court confronted in Loving; the statute there, prohibiting black and white people from marrying each other, was in substance anti-black legislation."
http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/appea...86-89opn06.pdf



NY means New York - hardly a bastion of conservative Bible-bashers so you can't use your christiophobic slurs!

Instead feel free to include an apology in your next post

Name one right gays have the straight people don't have, including on this site.

Hate speech for expressing an honest Biblical opinion about the immorality of homosexuality.

No such law exists. Sorry.

Also employment laws, laws governing property rentals, so called 'hate'crimes, etc. It's a long list of special preferences.

Hate crimes legislation apply to everybody, not just gays...sorry.

On this site it's apparently not allowed to use so called slurs about homosexuals, but you can make slurs against Christians all day long

I wouldn't know about that, but this has not seemed to deter you from your hateful spew about gays one bit...so I fail to see what the problem is.

As you do.

Denying free speech is part of the homosexual agenda

Not sure, never got a copy of that agenda.



And trying to compare black Americans with homosexuals is both fallacious and disingenuous - and has been dismissed by many state Supreme courts.

Which states? Which cases? Please name them and show me the decisions by these "many" state Supreme Courts where they have called this comparison fallacious and disingenuous.



Let's start with the NY Court of Appeals ruling from July 2006:

"By limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, New York is not engaging in sex discrimination. The limitation does not put men and women in different classes, and give one class a benefit not given to the other.

Women and men are treated alike -- they are permitted to marry people of the opposite sex, but not people of their own sex.

This is not the kind of sham equality that the Supreme Court confronted in Loving; the statute there, prohibiting black and white people from marrying each other, was in substance anti-black legislation."
http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/appea...86-89opn06.pdf



NY means New York - hardly a bastion of conservative Bible-bashers so you can't use your christiophobic slurs!

You said "Many" states, this is one state....care to reconcile that?

Instead feel free to include an apology in your next post

I am deeply sorry that you are incapable of thinking before you make wild statements that you are incapable of supporting in the least?

Originally Posted by knowuryder (Lesbian couple of 55 years ready to say 'I do')
Name one right gays have the straight people don't have, including on this site.

Hate speech for expressing an honest Biblical opinion about the immorality of homosexuality.

No such law exists. Sorry.

It's a First Amendment right - or it was until the homosexuals had free speech curtailed

Just another example of special protections afforded to homosexuals.

Yes, that's right, this is exactly what I said, no such law exists curtailing your first amendment right to free speech. You claimed there was, I said there isn't. This means that I am right and you are wrong...as usual.



Also employment laws, laws governing property rentals, so called 'hate'crimes, etc. It's a long list of special preferences.

Hate crimes legislation apply to everybody, not just gays...sorry.



If hate crime laws applied to everyone there would be no reason to have them

I am not arguing whether we should have them, I am saying that they are not discriminatory. I know straight men who have been bashed for being gay, the law protects them as much as it protects me. You said gays have special rights (meaning extra rights) and I said that we don't....which means again, I am right and you are wrong...as usual.






On this site it's apparently not allowed to use so called slurs about homosexuals, but you can make slurs against Christians all day long

I wouldn't know about that, but this has not seemed to deter you from your hateful spew about gays one bit...so I fail to see what the problem is.


I have proven that fact to you on another thread

Take it up with the site administration, I hadn't been here long enough to see what you are talking about nor have I seen proof of this for myself. I really don't care what you call me...and anyway, this is a site, not the real world and it does not reflect the laws of the land where you are free to rant anything you wish from the rooftops. Happy now? I doubt it.

No wonder you conveniently assume ignorance






And trying to compare black Americans with homosexuals is both fallacious and disingenuous - and has been dismissed by many state Supreme courts.

Which states? Which cases? Please name them and show me the decisions by these "many" state Supreme Courts where they have called this comparison fallacious and disingenuous.



Let's start with the NY Court of Appeals ruling from July 2006:

"By limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, New York is not engaging in sex discrimination. The limitation does not put men and women in different classes, and give one class a benefit not given to the other.

Women and men are treated alike -- they are permitted to marry people of the opposite sex, but not people of their own sex.

This is not the kind of sham equality that the Supreme Court confronted in Loving; the statute there, prohibiting black and white people from marrying each other, was in substance anti-black legislation."
http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/appea...86-89opn06.pdf



NY means New York - hardly a bastion of conservative Bible-bashers so you can't use your christiophobic slurs!

You said "Many" states, this is one state....care to reconcile that?



26 states have amended their Constitutions to protect traditional marriage, another 18 have DOMA protections - you can research them at your leisure.

Sooooo, you an make the statement, but you can't prove the statement.

Typical.

NNNNNNNNNEXT

Let's have you reconcile your hateful bigoted christiophobic outbursts with my skilfully substantiated arguments.

Anyone with a brain can see that you lost this debate with me the minute I signed on to the forum.

......and you know it.

(Gary getting kicked in the butt)

You just make us all laugh, gary. We humor you long enough for you to start spewing your nonsense, then we sit back and enjoy the show. You are like an animal in a cage. We know just what to say to get you to do your little tricks for us.

I don't even find him a little bit amusing any more - I just put him on ignore.

Every three weeks or so, I'll take him off ignore and see if he's typing the same b.s. he's been typing for seven years.

He never disappoints - and back on ignore he goes.

Race has generally been held to be a "suspect class". Sexual orientation is generally held not to be a "suspect class" in equal protection cases.

Our conclusion here, that plaintiffs have not established that they are members of a suspect class, accords with the decisions of the overwhelming majority of courts, which find that gay and lesbian persons do not constitute a suspect class. See Lofton v. Sec'y of the Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 358 F.3d 804, 818, 818 n. 4 (11th Cir.2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1081, 125 S.Ct. 869, 160 L.Ed.2d 825 (2005) (concluding that gay and lesbian persons are not a suspect class and citing cases from the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Circuits that have reached the same conclusion). The Second and Eighth Circuits have reached the same conclusion. Able v. United States, 155 F.3d 628, 632 (2d Cir.199; Richenberg v. Perry, 97 F.3d 256, 260 (8th Cir.1996). The Court of Appeals held in Singer, 11 Wash.App. 247, 522 P.2d 1187, that gay and lesbian persons do not constitute a suspect class. And even two state courts deciding that same-sex couples have a right to a civil union or marriage did not find a suspect class. Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A.2d 864 (1999) (under the state constitution's common benefits clause, plaintiffs seeking same-sex marriage are entitled to benefits and obligations like those accompanying marriage); Goodridge v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941 (2003) (denial of civil marriage to same-sex couples violates state equal protection principles). And, while the plaintiffs cite cases they say hold that gay and lesbian persons constitute a suspect class, most do not support the proposition or are otherwise distinguishable. Tanner v. Oregon Health Sciences University, 157 Or.App. 502, 971 P.2d 435 (199, the court applied an independent analysis under Oregon's privileges and, immunities clause and concluded that gay and lesbian persons constitute a suspect class. The analysis bears little resemblance to the analysis that applies under the equal protection clause. They cite Li v. State of Oregon, No. 0403-03057 (Multnomah County Circuit Ct.2004). But this trial court decision was reversed by the Oregon Supreme Court. Li v. State, 338 Or. 376, 110 P.3d 91 (2005). Children's Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Bonta, 97 Cal.App.4th 740, 769, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 629 (2002) does not concern any issue involving gay and lesbian persons, and says only in passing, without authority, that the issue before it did not relate to a suspect class "such as race or sexual orientation." Baehr, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P.2d 44, has a lead opinion signed by two justices who concluded that gay and lesbian persons constitute a sex-based suspect class, a concurring opinion of one justice who concluded that a fact question existed as to whether homosexuality is biologically driven and thus a sex-based class, and a two-justice dissent that disagreed. Before the issue was resolved, the voters in Hawai`i passed a constitutional amendment leaving it to the state legislature to decide whether same-sex marriage would be allowed.8 Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, No. 3AN-95-6562 CI, 1998 WL 88743 (Alaska Super.Ct. Feb. 27, 199 is a trial court decision finding that denial of marriage to same-sex couples violated the Alaska State Constitution. The court engaged in a fundamental rights analysis but said in dicta that it would also find that gay and lesbian persons constitute a suspect class. The court did not engage in any analysis or cite any authority regarding suspect classification, however. Nine months after the decision was filed, the voters in Alaska passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as opposite-sex marriage.
¶ 38 The plaintiffs also suggest that Miguel v. Guess, 112 Wash.App. 536, 51 P.3d 89 (2002