Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros misconstrue 14th Amendment and “equal protection of the laws”.

[Redfish]

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. Therefore, state marriage laws can never be unconstitutional.

Genius....a fucking genius

Yeah. You can't fight that kind of dumb.

Yeah, rightwinger really is super dumb. so is his sockmate, jake snarky.

They're two of the biggest loser twits on this sites. I just blocked Jake because his posts were irredeemably pointless.

I agree. and I strongly suspect that they are the same person with two user names. If you look at the talking points they post, the writing style, and the idiotic refusal to deal with facts, I can't prove it but you will notice that they are never on line at that same time.

 

[bodecea]

thats true, so if you want gay marriage to be legal in the USA, pass a constitutional amendment, get 38 states to ratify it and it will be the law of the land.

But if you can't do that, then each state gets to decide based on the votes of citizens of that state.

States can't decide to have unconstitutional marriage laws. I just proved that with the interracial marriage example.

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. Therefore, state marriage laws can never be unconstitutional.

Genius....a fucking genius

no, you are far from a genius. more like a fucking idiot. your opinions are as valuable as a sack of cat shit

Double down

What he's just said is that all those state laws against inter-racial marriage were NEVER unconstitutional...even after Loving v Virginia.

 

[The Rabbi]

The bottom line on this is that people disagree. When people disagree on a societal issue, the vote and the majority opinion becomes that norm that the entire society must accept.

Forget you 14th amendment talking points because they are invalid. Lets have a national referendum and if a majority of the citizens want gay marriage legalized then put in into the constitution by amendment.

That is the only to end the debate. Let the people speak. And if your side loses STFU.

Are you sure you want rights to be decided by popular vote?

Man, are you a foreigner to this country, or what?

What right is being decided by popular vote?
DO you want public policy settled by unelected unaccountable officials? Thats what the Nazis did.

You are not aware that we are a Constitutional Republic, are you?

When you understand what that means get back to me.

Oh, I'm well aware. You, however, seem to be having trouble with it.....when you go on about JUST popular vote on things.

No, you clearly are clueless.

 

[Skylar]

And what does the 14th Amendment actually state? It states “ ...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” All that declares is, whatever laws a state passes any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

The 14th amendment doesn't make any limit to what basis of inequality the Federal government can prevent States from enacting in State laws. There is no limit to race only anywhere in the 14th amendment.

If you believe there is, quote the 'plain language' of the 14th amendment indicating its limited to issues of race alone.

You'll find there's no such passage.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. Therefore, state marriage laws can never be unconstitutional.

Genius....a fucking genius

Yeah. You can't fight that kind of dumb.

Yeah, rightwinger really is super dumb. so is his sockmate, jake snarky.

They're two of the biggest loser twits on this sites. I just blocked Jake because his posts were irredeemably pointless.

I agree. and I strongly suspect that they are the same person with two user names. If you look at the talking points the post, the writing style, and the idiotic refusal to deal with facts, I can't prove it but you will notice that they are never on line at that same time.

I guess you guys can't handle having two different people owning you all the time....they MUST be one guy.

 

[g5000]

I guess you guys can't handle having two different people owning you all the time....they MUST be one guy.

UnCensored likes to believe I am also Jake. It's hilarious.

 

[The Rabbi]

Genius....a fucking genius

Yeah. You can't fight that kind of dumb.

Yeah, rightwinger really is super dumb. so is his sockmate, jake snarky.

They're two of the biggest loser twits on this sites. I just blocked Jake because his posts were irredeemably pointless.

I agree. and I strongly suspect that they are the same person with two user names. If you look at the talking points the post, the writing style, and the idiotic refusal to deal with facts, I can't prove it but you will notice that they are never on line at that same time.

I guess you guys can't handle having two different people owning you all the time....they MUST be one guy.

Yeha, bye-bye cupcake.

 

[Redfish]

Genius....a fucking genius

Yeah. You can't fight that kind of dumb.

Yeah, rightwinger really is super dumb. so is his sockmate, jake snarky.

They're two of the biggest loser twits on this sites. I just blocked Jake because his posts were irredeemably pointless.

I agree. and I strongly suspect that they are the same person with two user names. If you look at the talking points the post, the writing style, and the idiotic refusal to deal with facts, I can't prove it but you will notice that they are never on line at that same time.

I guess you guys can't handle having two different people owning you all the time....they MUST be one guy.

wrong, paid posters create multiple user names to make it look like there are more idiots like them than there really are. Its an internet message board game that they play.

Consider yourself informed.

 

[Redfish]

Tantaros is still hot. Bet you lesbians get wet thinking about her-------------sorry, she's straight, try O'Donnel.

 

[Jarhead]

Yeah. You can't fight that kind of dumb.

Yeah, rightwinger really is super dumb. so is his sockmate, jake snarky.

They're two of the biggest loser twits on this sites. I just blocked Jake because his posts were irredeemably pointless.

I agree. and I strongly suspect that they are the same person with two user names. If you look at the talking points the post, the writing style, and the idiotic refusal to deal with facts, I can't prove it but you will notice that they are never on line at that same time.

I guess you guys can't handle having two different people owning you all the time....they MUST be one guy.

wrong, paid posters create multiple user names to make it look like there are more idiots like them than there really are. Its an internet message board game that they play.

Consider yourself informed.

paid posters? Really? Regardless of the numbers you see on here....for all intents and purposes, this is a message board with about 50 regulars.
I doubt anyone puts credence on the bantering that goes on in here.

 

[Redfish]

I guess you guys can't handle having two different people owning you all the time....they MUST be one guy.

UnCensored likes to believe I am also Jake. It's hilarious.

as much as I hate to say it, you are smarter than both of them. You occaisionally make sense, they never do.

 

[Jarhead]

Tantaros is still hot. Bet you lesbians get wet thinking about her-------------sorry, she's straight, try O'Donnel.

yes, she is hot. And girl on girl porn is hot.
Doesn't matter what you say. I find it hot.

 

[Redfish]

Yeah, rightwinger really is super dumb. so is his sockmate, jake snarky.

They're two of the biggest loser twits on this sites. I just blocked Jake because his posts were irredeemably pointless.

I agree. and I strongly suspect that they are the same person with two user names. If you look at the talking points the post, the writing style, and the idiotic refusal to deal with facts, I can't prove it but you will notice that they are never on line at that same time.

I guess you guys can't handle having two different people owning you all the time....they MUST be one guy.

wrong, paid posters create multiple user names to make it look like there are more idiots like them than there really are. Its an internet message board game that they play.

Consider yourself informed.

paid posters? Really? Regardless of the numbers you see on here....for all intents and purposes, this is a message board with about 50 regulars.
I doubt anyone puts credence on the bantering that goes on in here.

wrong, look at the number of visitors. much higher than the number of posters.

 

[Jarhead]

I guess you guys can't handle having two different people owning you all the time....they MUST be one guy.

UnCensored likes to believe I am also Jake. It's hilarious.

as much as I hate to say it, you are smarter than both of them. You occaisionally make sense, they never do.

Smarter? Nah.....I just happen to agree with most of what you say. I am a conservative. I don't care how others live their lives as long as they don't force me to live it the same way.

 

[Redfish]

Tantaros is still hot. Bet you lesbians get wet thinking about her-------------sorry, she's straight, try O'Donnel.

yes, she is hot. And girl on girl porn is hot.
Doesn't matter what you say. I find it hot.

I don't recall disagreeing with that. Now, would you get turned on watching Hillary and Rosie? Damn, I hope to never have to see that.

 

[Redfish]

I guess you guys can't handle having two different people owning you all the time....they MUST be one guy.

UnCensored likes to believe I am also Jake. It's hilarious.

as much as I hate to say it, you are smarter than both of them. You occaisionally make sense, they never do.

Smarter? Nah.....I just happen to agree with most of what you say. I am a conservative. I don't care how others live their lives as long as they don't force me to live it the same way.

my reply was to G500, not you, but I'm glad you agree with me.

 

[Jarhead]

Tantaros is still hot. Bet you lesbians get wet thinking about her-------------sorry, she's straight, try O'Donnel.

yes, she is hot. And girl on girl porn is hot.
Doesn't matter what you say. I find it hot.

I don't recall disagreeing with that. Now, would you get turned on watching Hillary and Rosie? Damn, I hope to never have to see that.

Hillary and Rosie? No. No interest.

Andrea Tantaros and Dana Perino? That dvd would never leave the player. Even my wife finds Dana hot.

 

[kaz]

so you are ok with multiple person marriages and filling up our courts with very very complex divorce cases?

can you imagine the divorce of a 5 person marriage where 3 want one person divorced out of the marriage and one wants him/her to stay. multiple kids from multiple couplings, 7 or 8 cars, 401K accounts.

come on, Think

I have no issue with it at all. I will not have to deal with the aggravation as you described above....why should I care if others opt to?

And as for "filling up our courts".....divorces are doing that anyway....whether it is divorcing one, or two or half or whatever, it wont make a difference.

I am a conservative. You wish to make your life more difficult, go for it. Just don't expect me to be there to bail you out. I may opt to bail you out, but don't assume it is a given.

So your solution to the plethora of divorces s to increase them? I dont get it.
The end game here is not gay marriage. It is not polygamous marriage. It is the destruction of marriage. Once marriage ceases to have a sacred aspect it has none at all. That is the end game.

To me, marriage is what my wife and I make of it.

I know one guy that cheats on his wife. Is his marriage, in my eyes, as sacred as mine? No. Does it affect mine? No.

You want to be against gay marriage because it is your religious belief that gay sex is a sin and therefore gay marriage will promote a sin...I get it. I am fine with it. You have the right to wish to protect your religious view of homosexuality.

But to say that someone elses marriage will result in the destruction of the sacredness of marriage...in particular...your marriage....I just don't see it.

Sorry.

What if someone thinks the point of government marriage is encouraging children be born in wedlock? We only have so much tax money, why spend a bunch of it having gay marriage?

If that were the case, there would be something, somewhere in the marriage licensing that mentions children. And there would be something, somewhere in our other laws discouraging out-of-wedlock births.

Why?

And seriously, you don't think children were the primary justification for government marriage? Seriously?

 

[Skylar]

Yeah. You can't fight that kind of dumb.

Yeah, rightwinger really is super dumb. so is his sockmate, jake snarky.

They're two of the biggest loser twits on this sites. I just blocked Jake because his posts were irredeemably pointless.

I agree. and I strongly suspect that they are the same person with two user names. If you look at the talking points the post, the writing style, and the idiotic refusal to deal with facts, I can't prove it but you will notice that they are never on line at that same time.

I guess you guys can't handle having two different people owning you all the time....they MUST be one guy.

wrong, paid posters create multiple user names to make it look like there are more idiots like them than there really are. Its an internet message board game that they play.

Consider yourself informed.

Says who?

 

[Jarhead]

I have no issue with it at all. I will not have to deal with the aggravation as you described above....why should I care if others opt to?

And as for "filling up our courts".....divorces are doing that anyway....whether it is divorcing one, or two or half or whatever, it wont make a difference.

I am a conservative. You wish to make your life more difficult, go for it. Just don't expect me to be there to bail you out. I may opt to bail you out, but don't assume it is a given.

So your solution to the plethora of divorces s to increase them? I dont get it.
The end game here is not gay marriage. It is not polygamous marriage. It is the destruction of marriage. Once marriage ceases to have a sacred aspect it has none at all. That is the end game.

To me, marriage is what my wife and I make of it.

I know one guy that cheats on his wife. Is his marriage, in my eyes, as sacred as mine? No. Does it affect mine? No.

You want to be against gay marriage because it is your religious belief that gay sex is a sin and therefore gay marriage will promote a sin...I get it. I am fine with it. You have the right to wish to protect your religious view of homosexuality.

But to say that someone elses marriage will result in the destruction of the sacredness of marriage...in particular...your marriage....I just don't see it.

Sorry.

What if someone thinks the point of government marriage is encouraging children be born in wedlock? We only have so much tax money, why spend a bunch of it having gay marriage?

If that were the case, there would be something, somewhere in the marriage licensing that mentions children. And there would be something, somewhere in our other laws discouraging out-of-wedlock births.

Why?

And seriously, you don't think children were the primary justification for government marriage? Seriously?

Nope. I believe it was a mis step by government and initially used for census reasons.