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

[BULLDOG]

But they do tend to speak about equal protection of the laws

Kind of covers everything

We limit equal protection all the time. Why can an 18 year old be an adult and not be able to drink liquor or buy a pistol?

Mark

Send any 9 year old to Texas and he can buy all the guns he wants as long as he has the cash.

Liar--------------

There are no requirements for any checks whatsoever for individual gun sales in Texas. Some might not sell to a 9 year old, but there are plenty that would. With no requirement for any type of verification, how can you say anyone couldn't buy a gun?

Then lets do it another way. The US government federal law states that you cannot sell a pistol to anyone that isn't 21 years of age.

If Texas is doing that, they are nullifying federal law. IOW's, if you think Texas is right, then you must also agree that Texas should be able to nullify any gay marriage law as well.

That about right?

Mark

Never said it was right. Just said that is the way it is.

 

[80zephyr]

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

There is no basis. Marriage and the way one marries should be an individuals decision....I have no issue with heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, or multiple spouse marriages.

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.

huh? That is a flawed argument.

Why would a polygamous marriage INCREASE divorces. It may complicate them for those that are engaged in one....but increase them? I don't see it.

And who said I am seeking a solution for the plethora of divorces? You are a conservative. Why should you care if others are getting divorced at a high rate? I don't. That's their problem.

I have been married for over 30 years to the same beautiful woman....and during our lives together we have witnessed dozens of divorces....yet our marriage has not been affected by it one iota.

As a conservative, you must realize that divorced couples rely on the state to get the money they need to survive. The statistics are absolutely clear, divorced parents and single family parents rely a great deal on the government to survive.

So, EVERY divorce affects you. EVERY single mother affects you.

And sadly, statistics also show that the kids that come from these homes do worse in school, tend to be poor themselves when they reach adulthood, and go thru the criminal justice system at a much greater rate.

When the government pays, everyone is affected.

Mark

 

[NYcarbineer]

Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay did not. Thread fail, the end

agree, all of these gay threads run the same course with the same old tired failed arguments from the left. Its a waste of time and typing skills to participate in them.

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

Why then were laws against interracial marriage struck down? Those were STATE laws regarding MARRIAGE.

Because they discriminated on the basis of race. But outside of very narrow areas of federal interest states had the power to regulate marriage. That was the holding in Loving.

Ah, so now you concede that the 10th Amendment does NOT give states powers that conflict with the Constitution.

 

[BULLDOG]

But they do tend to speak about equal protection of the laws

Kind of covers everything

We limit equal protection all the time. Why can an 18 year old be an adult and not be able to drink liquor or buy a pistol?

Mark

Send any 9 year old to Texas and he can buy all the guns he wants as long as he has the cash.

Liar--------------

There are no requirements for any checks whatsoever for individual gun sales in Texas. Some might not sell to a 9 year old, but there are plenty that would. With no requirement for any type of verification, how can you say anyone couldn't buy a gun?

no legitimate gun dealer is going to sell a gun to a 9 year old kid. Thats just a ridiculous statement.

You're right. Who said it had to be a legitimate gun dealer? Individual gun sales in Texas have no documentation requirements.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay did not. Thread fail, the end

agree, all of these gay threads run the same course with the same old tired failed arguments from the left. Its a waste of time and typing skills to participate in them.

Straight marriage isn't a right then either.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

And the US Constitution still takes precidence

The US COnstitution takes precedence over the US Constitution? Sure thing, Sparky.

You should read the 10th Amendment some day.

 

[80zephyr]

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?

I would remind that person the government should not be promoting anything as it pertains to what we wish to do...and there is no point of government marriage.

Then you would advocate to eliminate all the benefits of marriage? Be careful what you wish for.

Mark

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why then were laws against interracial marriage struck down? Those were STATE laws regarding MARRIAGE.

It was marriage of one man and one woman of different races----------its not the same as two men or two women.

Damn, you libs are a thick headed bunch.

But marriage between 2 people of different races was deemed as "not normal" until late last century.

So the argument that gay marriage is "not normal" does not hold much water.

Wrong, mixing of the races was considered wrong by many ignorant people. Trying to equate racially mixed marriage to gay marriage will never work for you. Its just not analogous no matter how many times you say it.

You cannot change human biology, as much as you wish you could.

what does gay marriage have to do with biology?

Procreation, yes. But marriage is not defined as a means to procreate.

Marriage is the joining of two people of opposite sexes. gay marriage is an oxymoron, supported by morons.

Since polygamy is defined as a form of marriage, you, as usual, don't know what you're talking about.

 

[80zephyr]

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?

I would remind that person the government should not be promoting anything as it pertains to what we wish to do...and there is no point of government marriage.

I agree, there is no purpose in government marriage. There is a better solution for everything it supposedly solves. You're just arguing against being against gay marriage specifically because someone thinks it undermines their marriage? If so, I agree with you on that

Exactly how I feel. Argue that it is against your religious beliefs, I am OK with that. I may not feel the same, but I can not say your religious beliefs are wrong. Argue that it undermines your marriage, I will tell you that your marriage has more serious issues if you feel that way.

I can argue successfully that "easy divorce" led to more divorce. I can also argue that as more people divorced, it became more socially acceptable to do so.

Did it have an impact on "your" marriage? Maybe not. But we can say unequivocally that it DID have an effect on marriage in society as a whole.

Mark

 

[BULLDOG]

There is no basis. Marriage and the way one marries should be an individuals decision....I have no issue with heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, or multiple spouse marriages.

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.

huh? That is a flawed argument.

Why would a polygamous marriage INCREASE divorces. It may complicate them for those that are engaged in one....but increase them? I don't see it.

And who said I am seeking a solution for the plethora of divorces? You are a conservative. Why should you care if others are getting divorced at a high rate? I don't. That's their problem.

I have been married for over 30 years to the same beautiful woman....and during our lives together we have witnessed dozens of divorces....yet our marriage has not been affected by it one iota.

As a conservative, you must realize that divorced couples rely on the state to get the money they need to survive. The statistics are absolutely clear, divorced parents and single family parents rely a great deal on the government to survive.

So, EVERY divorce affects you. EVERY single mother affects you.

And sadly, statistics also show that the kids that come from these homes do worse in school, tend to be poor themselves when they reach adulthood, and go thru the criminal justice system at a much greater rate.

When the government pays, everyone is affected.

Mark

How stupid do you have to be to say all divorced couples have to rely on the state to survive. You're an idiot.

 

[80zephyr]

We limit equal protection all the time. Why can an 18 year old be an adult and not be able to drink liquor or buy a pistol?

Mark

Send any 9 year old to Texas and he can buy all the guns he wants as long as he has the cash.

Liar--------------

There are no requirements for any checks whatsoever for individual gun sales in Texas. Some might not sell to a 9 year old, but there are plenty that would. With no requirement for any type of verification, how can you say anyone couldn't buy a gun?

Then lets do it another way. The US government federal law states that you cannot sell a pistol to anyone that isn't 21 years of age.

If Texas is doing that, they are nullifying federal law. IOW's, if you think Texas is right, then you must also agree that Texas should be able to nullify any gay marriage law as well.

That about right?

Mark

Never said it was right. Just said that is the way it is.

So my point stands. The government LEGALLY stops some adults from doing some things other adults are allowed to do.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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.

huh? That is a flawed argument.

Why would a polygamous marriage INCREASE divorces. It may complicate them for those that are engaged in one....but increase them? I don't see it.

And who said I am seeking a solution for the plethora of divorces? You are a conservative. Why should you care if others are getting divorced at a high rate? I don't. That's their problem.

I have been married for over 30 years to the same beautiful woman....and during our lives together we have witnessed dozens of divorces....yet our marriage has not been affected by it one iota.

As a conservative, you must realize that divorced couples rely on the state to get the money they need to survive. The statistics are absolutely clear, divorced parents and single family parents rely a great deal on the government to survive.

So, EVERY divorce affects you. EVERY single mother affects you.

And sadly, statistics also show that the kids that come from these homes do worse in school, tend to be poor themselves when they reach adulthood, and go thru the criminal justice system at a much greater rate.

When the government pays, everyone is affected.

Mark

How stupid do you have to be to say all divorced couples have to rely on the state to survive. You're an idiot.

Lol. OK, not every couple. Most.

Mark

 

[The Rabbi]

agree, all of these gay threads run the same course with the same old tired failed arguments from the left. Its a waste of time and typing skills to participate in them.

true. there is not a single mention of marriage in the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our founding documents.

if you want marriage of any type to be a right, the pass a constitutional amendment.

if you do such an amendment, would you prohibit multiple marriages? if so, on what basis?

You don't understand that not everything has to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution. In fact, in the Ninth Amendment, the framers made that clear.

Or the 10th where they said those were powers of the states? Yeah, marriage is a power of the state. Even federal courts have held that. Even the Supreme Court holds that.

Why then were laws against interracial marriage struck down? Those were STATE laws regarding MARRIAGE.

Because they discriminated on the basis of race. But outside of very narrow areas of federal interest states had the power to regulate marriage. That was the holding in Loving.

Ah, so now you concede that the 10th Amendment does NOT give states powers that conflict with the Constitution.

I dont concede it. I never said it did.
But since the Constitution is silent on marriage, the states must have the power to regulate it, as per the 10th.

 

[The Rabbi]

Send any 9 year old to Texas and he can buy all the guns he wants as long as he has the cash.

Liar--------------

There are no requirements for any checks whatsoever for individual gun sales in Texas. Some might not sell to a 9 year old, but there are plenty that would. With no requirement for any type of verification, how can you say anyone couldn't buy a gun?

Then lets do it another way. The US government federal law states that you cannot sell a pistol to anyone that isn't 21 years of age.

If Texas is doing that, they are nullifying federal law. IOW's, if you think Texas is right, then you must also agree that Texas should be able to nullify any gay marriage law as well.

That about right?

Mark

Never said it was right. Just said that is the way it is.

So my point stands. The government LEGALLY stops some adults from doing some things other adults are allowed to do.

Mark

Where are my farm subsidies? WHere are my explosives?

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

huh? That is a flawed argument.

Why would a polygamous marriage INCREASE divorces. It may complicate them for those that are engaged in one....but increase them? I don't see it.

And who said I am seeking a solution for the plethora of divorces? You are a conservative. Why should you care if others are getting divorced at a high rate? I don't. That's their problem.

I have been married for over 30 years to the same beautiful woman....and during our lives together we have witnessed dozens of divorces....yet our marriage has not been affected by it one iota.

As a conservative, you must realize that divorced couples rely on the state to get the money they need to survive. The statistics are absolutely clear, divorced parents and single family parents rely a great deal on the government to survive.

So, EVERY divorce affects you. EVERY single mother affects you.

And sadly, statistics also show that the kids that come from these homes do worse in school, tend to be poor themselves when they reach adulthood, and go thru the criminal justice system at a much greater rate.

When the government pays, everyone is affected.

Mark

How stupid do you have to be to say all divorced couples have to rely on the state to survive. You're an idiot.

Lol. OK, not every couple. Most.

Mark

Saying most is almost as stupid as saying all. Quit listening to rush. His crazy ideas are making you sound like an idiot.

 

[80zephyr]

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

I got so tired of these erroneous and repetitive arguments, I actually made a topic to address them: Reasons To Be Anti-Gay By The Numbers US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

See #2.

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?

Which "right" are you referring to? The left claims that people have a "right" to food, shelter and a job.

Why can a small group of elitist's change what a right is, and the people cannot?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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.

huh? That is a flawed argument.

Why would a polygamous marriage INCREASE divorces. It may complicate them for those that are engaged in one....but increase them? I don't see it.

And who said I am seeking a solution for the plethora of divorces? You are a conservative. Why should you care if others are getting divorced at a high rate? I don't. That's their problem.

I have been married for over 30 years to the same beautiful woman....and during our lives together we have witnessed dozens of divorces....yet our marriage has not been affected by it one iota.

As a conservative, you must realize that divorced couples rely on the state to get the money they need to survive. The statistics are absolutely clear, divorced parents and single family parents rely a great deal on the government to survive.

So, EVERY divorce affects you. EVERY single mother affects you.

And sadly, statistics also show that the kids that come from these homes do worse in school, tend to be poor themselves when they reach adulthood, and go thru the criminal justice system at a much greater rate.

When the government pays, everyone is affected.

Mark

How stupid do you have to be to say all divorced couples have to rely on the state to survive. You're an idiot.

Lol. OK, not every couple. Most.

Mark

Saying most is almost as stupid as saying all. Quit listening to rush. His crazy ideas are making you sound like an idiot.

I don't listen to Rush. I read. And since I already know that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, I understand that any disruption in that family will cost the government money.

For the first time in history, 51% of all public school kids qualify to get free/reduced cost lunches at school.

Now, you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that most families simply cannot exist after divorce without government help.

Mark

 

[Seawytch]

We allow people to own guns. When will owning an atomic bomb be a constitutional right?

So you agree with me that the slippery slope argument is bullshit.

That depends, where is your "starting point"?

I say that gay marriage is the latest attack on the family. The left has pushed for "shacking up", feminism, making divorce easy, and welfare to make it easier yet.

It appears to me that the slippery slope is at its next step, with the leftist plan being to destroy the family unit, so that the government has to take care of us.

It is the leftist way.

Mark

Really? That's your "theory". Gays, by the hundreds of thousands, are lining up to legally marry in order to "destroy the family unit"? That's weak for even a B movie plot.

 

[The Rabbi]

We allow people to own guns. When will owning an atomic bomb be a constitutional right?

So you agree with me that the slippery slope argument is bullshit.

That depends, where is your "starting point"?

I say that gay marriage is the latest attack on the family. The left has pushed for "shacking up", feminism, making divorce easy, and welfare to make it easier yet.

It appears to me that the slippery slope is at its next step, with the leftist plan being to destroy the family unit, so that the government has to take care of us.

It is the leftist way.

Mark

Really? That's your "theory". Gays, by the hundreds of thousands, are lining up to legally marry in order to "destroy the family unit"? That's weak for even a B movie plot.

Of course not. Dont be silly.
They're lining up for the free shit and to feel good about themselves. But that's irrelevant to the purpose of introducing such a thing

 

[Seawytch]

huh? That is a flawed argument.

Why would a polygamous marriage INCREASE divorces. It may complicate them for those that are engaged in one....but increase them? I don't see it.

And who said I am seeking a solution for the plethora of divorces? You are a conservative. Why should you care if others are getting divorced at a high rate? I don't. That's their problem.

I have been married for over 30 years to the same beautiful woman....and during our lives together we have witnessed dozens of divorces....yet our marriage has not been affected by it one iota.

As a conservative, you must realize that divorced couples rely on the state to get the money they need to survive. The statistics are absolutely clear, divorced parents and single family parents rely a great deal on the government to survive.

So, EVERY divorce affects you. EVERY single mother affects you.

And sadly, statistics also show that the kids that come from these homes do worse in school, tend to be poor themselves when they reach adulthood, and go thru the criminal justice system at a much greater rate.

When the government pays, everyone is affected.

Mark

How stupid do you have to be to say all divorced couples have to rely on the state to survive. You're an idiot.

Lol. OK, not every couple. Most.

Mark

Saying most is almost as stupid as saying all. Quit listening to rush. His crazy ideas are making you sound like an idiot.

I don't listen to Rush. I read. And since I already know that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck, I understand that any disruption in that family will cost the government money.

For the first time in history, 51% of all public school kids qualify to get free/reduced cost lunches at school.

Now, you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that most families simply cannot exist after divorce without government help.

Mark

Then why aren't y'all trying to make it harder to divorce rather than trying to keep tax paying gay couples from marrying?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Just like me and Superman