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

[boilermaker55]

It is time for you and your kind to admit that hetero marriage is undermining and making a mockery (not mockertry) of the institue.

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?

That would be what I would back. And I would still be against gay marriage. Gays marrying are not a biological family.

Mark

It will make a mockertry of the whole institution.
How about: man has business partner but no family. He wants to leave his share to his partner. But estate taxes would destroy it. So man marries business partner, even though none of them is gay. Man dies and passes estate via marital exemption.
Two business partners are indicted in shady business. Instead of testifying against each other they get married, taking advantage of spousal exclusions.
The applications are myriad.
And once you've got two men like that, family members are a cinch.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Gays aren't doing it to destroy the family, the left is. Gays are merely the lefts "useful idiots" in this phase of the game.

Mark

Oh, of course...I should have guessed that.

Yes, you should have. Every time the left has "experimented", they have always assured us that nothing was going to change.

Sorta like what they are doing with gay marriage.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

It is time for you and your kind to admit that hetero marriage is undermining and making a mockery (not mockertry) of the institue.

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?

That would be what I would back. And I would still be against gay marriage. Gays marrying are not a biological family.

Mark

It will make a mockertry of the whole institution.
How about: man has business partner but no family. He wants to leave his share to his partner. But estate taxes would destroy it. So man marries business partner, even though none of them is gay. Man dies and passes estate via marital exemption.
Two business partners are indicted in shady business. Instead of testifying against each other they get married, taking advantage of spousal exclusions.
The applications are myriad.
And once you've got two men like that, family members are a cinch.

Hetro marriage was fine until the left got their claws on it.

Mark

 

[johnwk]

This evening Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros with respect to “gay” [homosexual] marriages, suggested the 14th Amendment requires the equal protection of the law. What the 14th Amendment actually requires is, whatever law a state adopts with regard to a state issued marriage license, "no person" [singular] may be denied the equal protection of that law. But if a state makes a license law which makes a distinction based upon race, color or former condition of slavery, the expressed legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was to prohibit such a distinction.

The 14A does not mention, much less deal with, marriage. So your point is wrong from the start.
And there is no discrimination or lack of equality. All men are free to marry any woman, and vice versa. There is no "hetero test" to get married.

Wrong. A marriage law that allows a man to marry a woman, but prohibits a woman from marrying a woman is discriminatory, because it permits a man to obtain a license to do something that it denies to a woman.

Mere sophistry.
next.

The more important point is, the 14th Amendment does not, by its plain language or its legislative intent, prohibit a state to enact legislation which makes a distinction bases upon sex. And to ignore what the 14th Amendment states in plain language and also ignore the Congressional debates during which time if was framed which gives context to the meaning of the 14th Amendment is to reject the very principles of having a constitutionally limited system of government.

The big picture which O'Reilly and his amen crowd miss is, this is not about "gay marriage". It is about supporting and defending our constitutionally system of government.

JWK








The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Gays aren't doing it to destroy the family, the left is. Gays are merely the lefts "useful idiots" in this phase of the game.

Mark

Oh, of course...I should have guessed that.

Yes, you should have. Every time the left has "experimented", they have always assured us that nothing was going to change.

Sorta like what they are doing with gay marriage.

Mark

Or when they experimented with civil rights or women's rights or worker protections

 

[rightwinger]

It is time for you and your kind to admit that hetero marriage is undermining and making a mockery (not mockertry) of the institue.

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?

That would be what I would back. And I would still be against gay marriage. Gays marrying are not a biological family.

Mark

It will make a mockertry of the whole institution.
How about: man has business partner but no family. He wants to leave his share to his partner. But estate taxes would destroy it. So man marries business partner, even though none of them is gay. Man dies and passes estate via marital exemption.
Two business partners are indicted in shady business. Instead of testifying against each other they get married, taking advantage of spousal exclusions.
The applications are myriad.
And once you've got two men like that, family members are a cinch.

Hetro marriage was fine until the left got their claws on it.

Mark

Now that gays can marry, your hetero marriage is ruined

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Gays aren't doing it to destroy the family, the left is. Gays are merely the lefts "useful idiots" in this phase of the game.

Mark

Oh, of course...I should have guessed that.

Yes, you should have. Every time the left has "experimented", they have always assured us that nothing was going to change.

Sorta like what they are doing with gay marriage.

Mark

Or when they experimented with civil rights or women's rights or worker protections

And we see how well that turned out.

 

[kaz]

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

- Flatten taxes or better yet go to the fair tax
- Eliminate the death tax
- Make parental responsibilities and rights based on genes not paper
- Make it easier and cheaper to draw up legal documents such as living wills
- Let employees negotiate their own benefits with their employers
- Let people negotiate their own marriage "contracts"

Bam, there is no government "benefit" to marriage, and hell yeah, I wish for that

 

[NYcarbineer]

This evening Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros with respect to “gay” [homosexual] marriages, suggested the 14th Amendment requires the equal protection of the law. What the 14th Amendment actually requires is, whatever law a state adopts with regard to a state issued marriage license, "no person" [singular] may be denied the equal protection of that law. But if a state makes a license law which makes a distinction based upon race, color or former condition of slavery, the expressed legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was to prohibit such a distinction.

The 14A does not mention, much less deal with, marriage. So your point is wrong from the start.
And there is no discrimination or lack of equality. All men are free to marry any woman, and vice versa. There is no "hetero test" to get married.

Wrong. A marriage law that allows a man to marry a woman, but prohibits a woman from marrying a woman is discriminatory, because it permits a man to obtain a license to do something that it denies to a woman.

Mere sophistry.
next.

The more important point is, the 14th Amendment does not, by its plain language or its legislative intent, prohibit a state to enact legislation which makes a distinction bases upon sex. And to ignore what the 14th Amendment states in plain language and also ignore the Congressional debates during which time if was framed which gives context to the meaning of the 14th Amendment is to reject the very principles of having a constitutionally limited system of government.

The big picture which O'Reilly and his amen crowd miss is, this is not about "gay marriage". It is about supporting and defending our constitutionally system of government.

JWK








The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

So women, essentially, have no rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Gays aren't doing it to destroy the family, the left is. Gays are merely the lefts "useful idiots" in this phase of the game.

Mark

Oh, of course...I should have guessed that.

Yes, you should have. Every time the left has "experimented", they have always assured us that nothing was going to change.

Sorta like what they are doing with gay marriage.

Mark

To want nothing to change is to assume we've gotten as good as we can get.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

- Flatten taxes or better yet go to the fair tax

Put more accurately, cut taxes on the richer, raise taxes on the poorer.

- Eliminate the death tax

There is no death tax.

- Make parental responsibilities and rights based on genes not paper

IOW, end adoption.

- Let employees negotiate their own benefits with their employers

We do that, including with unions, that conservatives generally want to outlaw.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

That would be what I would back. And I would still be against gay marriage. Gays marrying are not a biological family.

Mark

Wow...whatcha gonna do with all those kids needing adoptin' in your freaky "biological only" world?

Are...are the gays gonna adopt them in such numbers as to make a difference? IOW's, is the "cure" worse than the sickness?

Mark

We already do.

As Overall Percentage Of Same-Sex Couples Raising Children Declines Those Adopting Almost Doubles Significant Diversity Among Lesbian and Gay Families Williams Institute

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Gays aren't doing it to destroy the family, the left is. Gays are merely the lefts "useful idiots" in this phase of the game.

Mark

Oh, of course...I should have guessed that.

Yes, you should have. Every time the left has "experimented", they have always assured us that nothing was going to change.

Sorta like what they are doing with gay marriage.

Mark

Or when they experimented with civil rights or women's rights or worker protections

And we see how well that turned out.

WTF are you babbling about?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Another shoe drops: Bill O’Reilly’s ex-colleagues call his L.A. riot stories ‘completely ficticious’
Six people who covered the riots with O’Reilly in California for Inside Edition told the Guardian they did not recall an incident in which, as O’Reilly has claimed, “concrete was raining down on us” and “we were attacked by protesters”.

 

[The Rabbi]

This evening Bill O’Reilly and Andrea Tantaros with respect to “gay” [homosexual] marriages, suggested the 14th Amendment requires the equal protection of the law. What the 14th Amendment actually requires is, whatever law a state adopts with regard to a state issued marriage license, "no person" [singular] may be denied the equal protection of that law. But if a state makes a license law which makes a distinction based upon race, color or former condition of slavery, the expressed legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was to prohibit such a distinction.

The 14A does not mention, much less deal with, marriage. So your point is wrong from the start.
And there is no discrimination or lack of equality. All men are free to marry any woman, and vice versa. There is no "hetero test" to get married.

Wrong. A marriage law that allows a man to marry a woman, but prohibits a woman from marrying a woman is discriminatory, because it permits a man to obtain a license to do something that it denies to a woman.

Mere sophistry.
next.

The more important point is, the 14th Amendment does not, by its plain language or its legislative intent, prohibit a state to enact legislation which makes a distinction bases upon sex. And to ignore what the 14th Amendment states in plain language and also ignore the Congressional debates during which time if was framed which gives context to the meaning of the 14th Amendment is to reject the very principles of having a constitutionally limited system of government.

The big picture which O'Reilly and his amen crowd miss is, this is not about "gay marriage". It is about supporting and defending our constitutionally system of government.

JWK








The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

So women, essentially, have no rights.

But they do have trade value for vehicles, beer, and so forth.

 

[The Rabbi]

Gays aren't doing it to destroy the family, the left is. Gays are merely the lefts "useful idiots" in this phase of the game.

Mark

Oh, of course...I should have guessed that.

Yes, you should have. Every time the left has "experimented", they have always assured us that nothing was going to change.

Sorta like what they are doing with gay marriage.

Mark

Or when they experimented with civil rights or women's rights or worker protections

And we see how well that turned out.

WTF are you babbling about?

An 8 word sentence is not babbling, professor. My post is obviously above your pay grade.

 

[80zephyr]

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

- Flatten taxes or better yet go to the fair tax
- Eliminate the death tax
- Make parental responsibilities and rights based on genes not paper
- Make it easier and cheaper to draw up legal documents such as living wills
- Let employees negotiate their own benefits with their employers
- Let people negotiate their own marriage "contracts"

Bam, there is no government "benefit" to marriage, and hell yeah, I wish for that

Having children is expensive. Children are the future of this country. Without them, no one will be here to care for us when we are old and need the care.

My link a few posts ago show what happens when the populace stops having kids.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Gays aren't doing it to destroy the family, the left is. Gays are merely the lefts "useful idiots" in this phase of the game.

Mark

Oh, of course...I should have guessed that.

Yes, you should have. Every time the left has "experimented", they have always assured us that nothing was going to change.

Sorta like what they are doing with gay marriage.

Mark

To want nothing to change is to assume we've gotten as good as we can get.

Yes, I would assume that practically everything under the sun was thought about and experimented with, at one time or another.

And way back, probably before recorded history, the family pretty much developed as it is today.

Mark

 

[johnwk]

- Flatten taxes or better yet go to the fair tax

Why do you support creating two new taxes [a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor] while keeping alive Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other lawfully earned "incomes"?


JWK



Is it not time to return to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN and end the progressive’s occupation of America which began in 1913 with the 16th Amendment and taxes laid and collected calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Gays aren't doing it to destroy the family, the left is. Gays are merely the lefts "useful idiots" in this phase of the game.

Mark

Oh, of course...I should have guessed that.

Yes, you should have. Every time the left has "experimented", they have always assured us that nothing was going to change.

Sorta like what they are doing with gay marriage.

Mark

Or when they experimented with civil rights or women's rights or worker protections

And we see how well that turned out.

Fascinating.........and I simply don't get why the Right can't attract more minority and women voters.