AR group submits gay marriage proposa...

AR group submits gay marriage proposal for 2016

There are 41 comments on the KAIT-TV story from Jul 9, 2013, titled AR group submits gay marriage proposal for 2016. In it, KAIT-TV reports that:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - A group has asked Arkansas' attorney general to approve the wording of a measure legalizing gay marriage for the 2016 ballot.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KAIT-TV.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1 Jul 9, 2013
Same Sex Marriage bans are violating my rights under Article 4 (The F.F. & C.C.), Article 6 (The supremacy clause), Amendment 1 (Religious freedom), Amendment 9 (Non enumerated Rights guaranteed retained by the people) as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

After all the words say "ALL CITIZENS" not "just the ones we like" or "only heterosexual citizens".

I just can't understand how people can have so much trouble comprehending what the word "ALL" means! Or that one plus one equals two and not 3 or more (the polygamy misconception of what EQUAL PROTECTION under the law means in relation to marriage equality).

BTW my X-Ray explains it all:

http://weheartit.com/entry/66640477

And for all the ones who want to argue "original intent" allow me to point out that the term "ALL" meant "All" ever since it came into our language over 3 centuries ago! If they "meant something other than 'all' they would have written it that way!

I hope this suit names all those parts of the U.S. Constitution I mentioned. The Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article 6) as well as the Full Faith and Credit Clause from article 4 CLEARLY trump the idea of States rights found in Amendment 10 as well as the religious freedom protections in Amendment 1 as well as the equal protection clause of Amendment 14.

Maybe then it will be clear to these judges what the INTENT was!
guest

Ridgedale, MO

#2 Jul 10, 2013
DNF, there is no right to gay marriage under either the U.S. Constitution or federal statue. Therefore, the supremacy clause is not applicable.

As far as religious rights go, marriage is a religious rite. Religions have the right to determine who is qualified and who isn't, not the federal government.

In Arkansas, the people overwhelmingly (75%) voted to amend our state Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That is the law of the land. If you don't like it, too damn bad. Move to a state that allows gay "marriage". It's not going to happen here.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#3 Jul 10, 2013
guest wrote:
DNF, there is no right to gay marriage under either the U.S. Constitution or federal statue. Therefore, the supremacy clause is not applicable.
As far as religious rights go, marriage is a religious rite. Religions have the right to determine who is qualified and who isn't, not the federal government.
In Arkansas, the people overwhelmingly (75%) voted to amend our state Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That is the law of the land. If you don't like it, too damn bad. Move to a state that allows gay "marriage". It's not going to happen here.
Eventually it will, whether through another vote by the people or when the SCOTUS overturns all remaining bans.

Eventually marriage equality is coming even to Arkansas.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#4 Jul 10, 2013
So we'll have votes in Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan, Arizona, Oregon, Nevada, Ohio, and likely other states as well in either 2014 or 2016.

While it's unlikely we win ALL those votes, the simple fact that votes are happening is a sign of where this is all heading.

The anti-gays are running out of time, and more importantly running out of voters and more anti-gays die every day.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#5 Jul 10, 2013
guest wrote:
DNF, there is no right to gay marriage under either the U.S. Constitution or federal statue. Therefore, the supremacy clause is not applicable.
There is however a right to marry and the states are not empowered to violate our right unless a compelling interest is served by doing so. There simply is no interest of the state that is served by denying that right simply because someone wishes to marry someone of their own sex.
guest wrote:
As far as religious rights go, marriage is a religious rite. Religions have the right to determine who is qualified and who isn't, not the federal government.
Any faith which does not wish to extend their rite of marriage to same sex couples would not have to, but there are any number of faiths that do. Besides, the right to marry is not the same thing as the religious rite of marriage, there is no requirement that a couple has to have any religion's blessing in order to exercise their right.
guest wrote:
In Arkansas, the people overwhelmingly (75%) voted to amend our state Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That is the law of the land. If you don't like it, too damn bad. Move to a state that allows gay "marriage". It's not going to happen here.
So you pray, but opinions change, even in Arkansas. The legal authority exists to bring this back to the voters as many times it takes to get it right.

“I'm here to make friends, etc.”

Since: Sep 10

Fernandina Beach, Florida

#6 Jul 10, 2013
guest wrote:
DNF, there is no right to gay marriage under either the U.S. Constitution or federal statue. Therefore, the supremacy clause is not applicable.
As far as religious rights go, marriage is a religious rite. Religions have the right to determine who is qualified and who isn't, not the federal government.
In Arkansas, the people overwhelmingly (75%) voted to amend our state Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That is the law of the land. If you don't like it, too damn bad. Move to a state that allows gay "marriage". It's not going to happen here.
If there is no right to marriage then why do straight people have that right? Either it is a right for everyone or straight people are getting special rights and privileges. That's unequal protection of the law. It wouldn't be equal either to say that black people have a right to marry their own race the same way white people have a right to marry their own race and that both races don't have a right to marry outside of their race, an argument used in favor of bans on interracial marriages. That argument doesn't fly. No gay man is going to want to marry a straight woman, or lesbian marry a straight man. If I can't marry a man that is something that a woman can do that I can't as a man. That's gender discrimination! Just because someone is discriminated against equally doesn't mean it is not discrimination. Just because there are no protections from or laws banning anti-gay discrimination does not change the fact that it is still discrimination. The were no laws protecting blacks but it didn't change the fact that what happened to them was discrimination and oppression and laws had to be made to protect them. Marriage equality IS going to happen one day so you better get used to it.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#7 Jul 10, 2013
guest wrote:
DNF, there is no right to gay marriage under either the U.S. Constitution or federal statue. Therefore, the supremacy clause is not applicable.
As far as religious rights go, marriage is a religious rite. Religions have the right to determine who is qualified and who isn't, not the federal government.
In Arkansas, the people overwhelmingly (75%) voted to amend our state Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That is the law of the land. If you don't like it, too damn bad. Move to a state that allows gay "marriage". It's not going to happen here.
Wrong. Amendment 9.

Marriage is a civil contact by the State It is not necessary for religious sanctions to be legal.

For a religious person I thought you knew telling a lie about your neighbor was against God's word in Commandment 9.

Looks like you can talk the talk but when it comes to walking the walk you're just a legless deaf and blind dog.

Luke 10:25-37 applies here as well.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#8 Jul 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
So we'll have votes in Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan, Arizona, Oregon, Nevada, Ohio, and likely other states as well in either 2014 or 2016.
While it's unlikely we win ALL those votes, the simple fact that votes are happening is a sign of where this is all heading.
The anti-gays are running out of time, and more importantly running out of voters and more anti-gays die every day.
a simple matter of the law of inertia.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#9 Jul 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
So we'll have votes in Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan, Arizona, Oregon, Nevada, Ohio, and likely other states as well in either 2014 or 2016.
While it's unlikely we win ALL those votes, the simple fact that votes are happening is a sign of where this is all heading.
The anti-gays are running out of time, and more importantly running out of voters and more anti-gays die every day.
And let us not forget how they are now distancing themselves from the whole "let the people vote" mantra.

IO forgot to point out that when I said marriage doesn't just affect couples it affects children as well. Clearly these people are only interested in trying to get a do over on Row v Wade, but they don't want the people to have a voice in government. Instead they are now trying new laws to replace the ones they lost and are shopping for more activist judges.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#10 Jul 10, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>There is however a right to marry and the states are not empowered to violate our right unless a compelling interest is served by doing so. There simply is no interest of the state that is served by denying that right simply because someone wishes to marry someone of their own sex.
<quoted text>Any faith which does not wish to extend their rite of marriage to same sex couples would not have to, but there are any number of faiths that do. Besides, the right to marry is not the same thing as the religious rite of marriage, there is no requirement that a couple has to have any religion's blessing in order to exercise their right.
<quoted text>So you pray, but opinions change, even in Arkansas. The legal authority exists to bring this back to the voters as many times it takes to get it right.
My deepest thanks Rick

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#11 Jul 10, 2013
John Crews wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is no right to marriage then why do straight people have that right? Either it is a right for everyone or straight people are getting special rights and privileges. That's unequal protection of the law. It wouldn't be equal either to say that black people have a right to marry their own race the same way white people have a right to marry their own race and that both races don't have a right to marry outside of their race, an argument used in favor of bans on interracial marriages. That argument doesn't fly. No gay man is going to want to marry a straight woman, or lesbian marry a straight man. If I can't marry a man that is something that a woman can do that I can't as a man. That's gender discrimination! Just because someone is discriminated against equally doesn't mean it is not discrimination. Just because there are no protections from or laws banning anti-gay discrimination does not change the fact that it is still discrimination. The were no laws protecting blacks but it didn't change the fact that what happened to them was discrimination and oppression and laws had to be made to protect them. Marriage equality IS going to happen one day so you better get used to it.
Great post and worth repeating.

My I borrow this for future use?

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#12 Jul 10, 2013
DNF wrote:
Same Sex Marriage bans are violating my rights under Article 4 (The F.F. & C.C.), Article 6 (The supremacy clause), Amendment 1 (Religious freedom), Amendment 9 (Non enumerated Rights guaranteed retained by the people) as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
After all the words say "ALL CITIZENS" not "just the ones we like" or "only heterosexual citizens".
I just can't understand how people can have so much trouble comprehending what the word "ALL" means! Or that one plus one equals two and not 3 or more (the polygamy misconception of what EQUAL PROTECTION under the law means in relation to marriage equality).
BTW my X-Ray explains it all:
http://weheartit.com/entry/66640477
And for all the ones who want to argue "original intent" allow me to point out that the term "ALL" meant "All" ever since it came into our language over 3 centuries ago! If they "meant something other than 'all' they would have written it that way!
I hope this suit names all those parts of the U.S. Constitution I mentioned. The Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article 6) as well as the Full Faith and Credit Clause from article 4 CLEARLY trump the idea of States rights found in Amendment 10 as well as the religious freedom protections in Amendment 1 as well as the equal protection clause of Amendment 14.
Maybe then it will be clear to these judges what the INTENT was!
I agree.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#13 Jul 10, 2013
guest wrote:
DNF, there is no right to gay marriage under either the U.S. Constitution or federal statue. Therefore, the supremacy clause is not applicable.
As far as religious rights go, marriage is a religious rite. Religions have the right to determine who is qualified and who isn't, not the federal government.
In Arkansas, the people overwhelmingly (75%) voted to amend our state Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That is the law of the land. If you don't like it, too damn bad. Move to a state that allows gay "marriage". It's not going to happen here.
You have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#14 Jul 10, 2013
John Crews wrote:
<quoted text>
If there is no right to marriage then why do straight people have that right? Either it is a right for everyone or straight people are getting special rights and privileges. That's unequal protection of the law. It wouldn't be equal either to say that black people have a right to marry their own race the same way white people have a right to marry their own race and that both races don't have a right to marry outside of their race, an argument used in favor of bans on interracial marriages. That argument doesn't fly. No gay man is going to want to marry a straight woman, or lesbian marry a straight man. If I can't marry a man that is something that a woman can do that I can't as a man. That's gender discrimination! Just because someone is discriminated against equally doesn't mean it is not discrimination. Just because there are no protections from or laws banning anti-gay discrimination does not change the fact that it is still discrimination. The were no laws protecting blacks but it didn't change the fact that what happened to them was discrimination and oppression and laws had to be made to protect them. Marriage equality IS going to happen one day so you better get used to it.
Marriage IS a "RIGHT" protected by the U.S. Constitution, and SCOTUS SPECIFICALLY ruled it such in Loving v. Virginia (1967) when they ruled states' anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#15 Jul 10, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong. Amendment 9.
Marriage is a civil contact by the State It is not necessary for religious sanctions to be legal.
For a religious person I thought you knew telling a lie about your neighbor was against God's word in Commandment 9.
Looks like you can talk the talk but when it comes to walking the walk you're just a legless deaf and blind dog.
Luke 10:25-37 applies here as well.
I agree.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Jul 10, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>And let us not forget how they are now distancing themselves from the whole "let the people vote" mantra.
IO forgot to point out that when I said marriage doesn't just affect couples it affects children as well. Clearly these people are only interested in trying to get a do over on Row v Wade, but they don't want the people to have a voice in government. Instead they are now trying new laws to replace the ones they lost and are shopping for more activist judges.
The anti-gays in Ohio actually tried to find an "activist judge" to prevent a petition drive to put the issue on the ballot, claiming they already voted once!

Not surprisingly they lost in court, and the signature petition is proceeding for a likely 2014 or 2016 vote.

“I'm here to make friends, etc.”

Since: Sep 10

Fernandina Beach, Florida

#17 Jul 11, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Great post and worth repeating.
My I borrow this for future use?
Of course!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#18 Jul 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The anti-gays in Ohio actually tried to find an "activist judge" to prevent a petition drive to put the issue on the ballot, claiming they already voted once!
Not surprisingly they lost in court, and the signature petition is proceeding for a likely 2014 or 2016 vote.
It's not just Ohio. It's in VA too and many other States.

None of this surprises me. I knew that if SCOTUS ruled in any way that favored the Constitutional Rights of Gay and Lesbian CITIZENS, the religious right and the anti-gay industry would not accept the rulings.

BTW this ballot repeal has been denied. The AG in AK has said the wording of the ballot initiative might lead people to believe this would legalize SSM.

Considering that the Prop8 people still can't accept that the CA Supremes already ruled that denying SSM is Unconstitutional and are now petitioning SCOCA to implement Prop8 shows just how much politicians think we have to dumb things down for "the common people".

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#19 Jul 13, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage IS a "RIGHT" protected by the U.S. Constitution, and SCOTUS SPECIFICALLY ruled it such in Loving v. Virginia (1967) when they ruled states' anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional.
They also made the same finding in 11 other cases.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#20 Jul 13, 2013
guest wrote:
DNF, there is no right to gay marriage under either the U.S. Constitution or federal statue.
The derfense of Marriage Act that Clinton signed made SSM legal. Congress passed it so CONGRESS voted to make it legal.

I've never favored tests being given to allow a citizen to vote but you're making a strong argument to have me change my mind about intelligence tests.

Your intellectual capacity is about on par with a raisin. Not quite as good as a raisin but almost.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 53 min Jasonville 6,178
News 1 step forward, 2 steps back for LBGT rights in... 1 hr Imprtnrd 8
News New Art Therapy Studio Draws on Power of Expres... 15 hr Dive4lifeblue 2
News Daycare worker, 23, is charged with the murder Sun Fit2Serve 2
News Church of Scotland moves closer to letting mini... Fri Pope Closet Emeritus 2
News From the Mouth of Muhammad: 'Allah Will Wed Me ... May 26 Muslims lie all t... 2
News Taiwan court legalizes gay marriage in historic... May 24 The Wheeze of Trump 5
More from around the web