Discharged for being gay, veterans face problems in re-enlisting

• isadore

  dwccrew;1034826 wrote:Why are you still trying to argue with Isadore? Isadore is the biggest joke on this site next to CCrunner609.

  gosh a ruddies, I didnt make number one.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1034945 wrote:From the beginning of the Loving Case was about state sanctioned marriage. That is the subjet of Virginia “Act to Preserve Racial Integrity .” The primary evidence against the Loving’s was the Marriage license they obtained in the District of Columbia. When the Supreme Court spoke about marriage being a basic right they were speaking of state sanctioned marriage which as denied to mixed race couples by the Virginia Act. The Virginia Act is not about common law marriages but state sanctioned. It is state sanctioned marriages that the court ruling is all about. It is that basic right they are acting to protect by striking down the Virginia Law.
  http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/encounter/projects/monacans/Contemporary_Monacans/racial.html
  It is interesting that even though the common in law option is available, people are not pushing to abolish state sanctioned marriage. In fact they are fighting by the millions to extend that basic right to more people despite your attempts to undermine their efforts.
  

  Yet in the extensive examination and ruling inclusive of State sanctioned marriage there is NO mandated requirement for marriage to exist solely by State sanction. marriage can and does exist without State sanctioning. It is NOT required by the Supreme Court in any ruling anywhere.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1035022 wrote:Interesting that Mario Rizzo, author of the blog, supports state sanctioned "civil" marriage
  “as a default option for those who do not want to build their own contract.”
  
  And of course the mass of Americans want state santioned marriage to be kept and millions are willing to campaign in order to be allowed to do it.

  Yes their are many more articles with regards to options as they relate to such matters. Those people come from a variety of directions. The point is State sanctioning is not required for marriage to exist. State's have no business in approving or disapproving relationships.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1034894 wrote:

  Con_Alma;1034598 wrote:The representatives of the masses, chosen from among them and put in office to carry out their will. And we have seen examples of the masses voting directly on basic right in 1868 a direct vote on black suffrage. In 1912 a direct vote on black suffrage in local elections and in women's suffrage. And of course we have seen direct votes on the basic right of gays to marry in various states.

  Ah, so elected representatives created legislation.
  
  When was it that the masses voted away an unalienable right?

• Con_Alma

  isadore;1034872 wrote:e post facto rationalization on your part. The tone of your earlier statement indicts you.

  Your interpretation of tone has no ability to indict anyone. Lol.
• Con_Alma

  dwccrew;1034826 wrote:Why are you still trying to argue with Isadore? Isadore is the biggest joke on this site next to CCrunner609.

  I don't argue with him. I lead him on so that he can burp up more silliness and inaccuracies.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1035772 wrote:Yet in the extensive examination and ruling inclusive of State sanctioned marriage there is NO mandated requirement for marriage to exist solely by State sanction. marriage can and does exist without State sanctioning. It is NOT required by the Supreme Court in any ruling anywhere.

  Well let see. In the Loving case you have a law whose purpose is to deny state sanctioned marriage to mixed race couples. You have the Supreme Court writing that marriage is a basic right and declaring the law forbidding those state sanctioned marriage unconstitutional. Now thats an endorsement of state sanctioned marriage and the court acting to protect that right.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1035783 wrote:Your interpretation of tone has no ability to indict anyone. Lol.

  if there were a non biased jury there would be a conviction.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1035780 wrote:

  isadore;1034894 wrote:
  Ah, so elected representatives created legislation.
  
  When was it that the masses voted away an unalienable right?

  in 1868 they voted against black suffrage and in 1912 they voted against women's suffrage.

• isadore

  Con_Alma;1035776 wrote:Yes their are many more articles with regards to options as they relate to such matters. Those people come from a variety of directions. The point is State sanctioning is not required for marriage to exist. State's have no business in approving or disapproving relationships.

  Really, you can not even find a person to quote who supports your viewpoint. Even Rizzo wants state sanctioned marriage. People want the government to provide them with this basic right. They find this a valuable service provided by the government. And they are not fighting to abolish that right, quite the opposite many are fighting for that right despite opposition of large group of bigots and you.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  I have a feeling isadore is just the worst in real life
• dwccrew

  

  DeyDurkie5;1035862 wrote:I have a feeling isadore is just the worst in real life

  gosh a ruddies, you think so?
• DeyDurkie5

  

  dwccrew;1036183 wrote:gosh a ruddies, you think so?

  
  yes!!!
• isadore

  DeyDurkie5;1035862 wrote:I have a feeling isadore is just the worst in real life

  gosh, you are perceptive.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1035802 wrote:Well let see. In the Loving case you have a law whose purpose is to deny state sanctioned marriage to mixed race couples. You have the Supreme Court writing that marriage is a basic right and declaring the law forbidding those state sanctioned marriage unconstitutional. Now thats an endorsement of state sanctioned marriage and the court acting to protect that right.

  It does not require the State to sanction marriage in order for one to be married.
  
  It's pretty simple.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1035824 wrote:Really, you can not even find a person to quote who supports your viewpoint. Even Rizzo wants state sanctioned marriage. People want the government to provide them with this basic right. They find this a valuable service provided by the government. And they are not fighting to abolish that right, quite the opposite many are fighting for that right despite opposition of large group of bigots and you.

  Sure I can. There are numerous article doing so, not that it matters. I don't base my opinion on others people endorsement.
  
  What people want doesn't change the fact that there is not reason to require State sanctioned marriage. Now it's a service? All the rights and benefits casn bee had just as easy without this "service".
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1035805 wrote:if there were a non biased jury there would be a conviction.

  There's not even an indictment therefore no reason to seek a jury.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1036537 wrote:It does not require the State to sanction marriage in order for one to be married.
  
  It's pretty simple.

  But it does define it as a basic right and overrule a law used to deny that right. It is a right that people want and should be there for their use. The Court wants it and the people want it.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1036538 wrote:Sure I can. There are numerous article doing so, not that it matters. I don't base my opinion on others people endorsement.
  
  What people want doesn't change the fact that there is not reason to require State sanctioned marriage. Now it's a service? All the rights and benefits casn bee had just as easy without this "service".

  People could always live together. But they want state sanctioned marriage. It is a right they want, it is a service provided by government. And they have an important series of benefits that come to them when they exercise this right. Informed opinion is that many of those benefits will be lost without state sanction.
  People want the right extended not cut despite the efforts of bigots and you.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1036539 wrote:There's not even an indictment therefore no reason to seek a jury.

  indicted, tried and convicted of obvious enthusiasm for an unlimited right to marry anyone.
• FairwoodKing

  I think I need to step in and clarify the gay position. We are not trying to do away with state-sanctioned marriage. We simply want to be a part of it. We know our limitations. The straight world is more sympathetic to our cause if we don't try to upset the whole boat. We just want our little slice of the pie.
• I Wear Pants

  FairwoodKing;1038019 wrote:I think I need to step in and clarify the gay position. We are not trying to do away with state-sanctioned marriage. We simply want to be a part of it. We know our limitations. The straight world is more sympathetic to our cause if we don't try to upset the whole boat. We just want our little slice of the pie.

  Now you want our pies to? My god you homos have no limits do you?
  
  I think most people that argue that the state should have no hand in marriage are pro-gay marriage anyway.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1036575 wrote:But it does define it as a basic right and overrule a law used to deny that right. It is a right that people want and should be there for their use. The Court wants it and the people want it.

  Thank you for finally concurring that there is no requirement for the State to sanction marriage. I appreciate it.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1036589 wrote:People could always live together. But they want state sanctioned marriage. It is a right they want, it is a service provided by government. And they have an important series of benefits that come to them when they exercise this right. Informed opinion is that many of those benefits will be lost without state sanction.
  People want the right extended not cut despite the efforts of bigots and you.

  State sanctioned marriage is not a right. There no need to have the State involved.
  
  There's also no reason to believe that benefits will be cut.
• Con_Alma

  FairwoodKing;1038019 wrote:I think I need to step in and clarify the gay position. We are not trying to do away with state-sanctioned marriage. We simply want to be a part of it. We know our limitations. The straight world is more sympathetic to our cause if we don't try to upset the whole boat. We just want our little slice of the pie.

  There no reason to have the State involved at all.
  
  You and everybody can have their "little Slice of the pie" equally if we rid the State from this process.