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

[NYcarbineer]

Where does it say that in the constitution? What legal document limits marriage to two people?

Yes, there is a long time precedent of two person marriage. There is also a long time precedent that marriage is one man and one woman. You care about one precedent but ignore the other one.

Slavery was legal for a long time.

The portion of the defense of marriage act that barred same sex married couple from federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

Actually, it would require a constitutional amendment such as the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" which was reject by the people. One of the reasons for its rejection was that it would lead to same sex "marriage".


JWK

That's just your opinion and you're an out on the fringe constitutional nut.

actually he is correct.

He's wrong if the court rules otherwise.

 

[johnwk]

You're simply wrong.

If there's any precedent in the first place, it's that marriage involves only TWO persons.

Where does it say that in the constitution? What legal document limits marriage to two people?

Yes, there is a long time precedent of two person marriage. There is also a long time precedent that marriage is one man and one woman. You care about one precedent but ignore the other one.

Slavery was legal for a long time.

The portion of the defense of marriage act that barred same sex married couple from federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

Actually, it would require a constitutional amendment such as the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" which was reject by the people. One of the reasons for its rejection was that it would lead to same sex "marriage".


JWK

yes, the people spoke. Thats the way it is supposed to work. We live in a country where the majority opinion controls, not the minority opinion.

And it's not just a simple majority. It requires three fourths of the states to approve a change as commanded by Article V of our Constitution. And this is what our tyrannical judges are circumventing ___ our Constitution's method for change to accommodate changing times.

These judges need to be taught a lesson and no punishment ought to be left off the table.


JWK

 

[johnwk]

Slavery was legal for a long time.

The portion of the defense of marriage act that barred same sex married couple from federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

Actually, it would require a constitutional amendment such as the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" which was reject by the people. One of the reasons for its rejection was that it would lead to same sex "marriage".


JWK

That's just your opinion and you're an out on the fringe constitutional nut.

actually he is correct.

He's wrong if the court rules otherwise.

Courts cannot change the truth. They can only lie about the truth as they do with regard to the meaning of the 14th Amendment.


JWK

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're simply wrong.

If there's any precedent in the first place, it's that marriage involves only TWO persons.

Where does it say that in the constitution? What legal document limits marriage to two people?

Yes, there is a long time precedent of two person marriage. There is also a long time precedent that marriage is one man and one woman. You care about one precedent but ignore the other one.

Slavery was legal for a long time.

The portion of the defense of marriage act that barred same sex married couple from federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

You don't have to if state laws banning gay marriage are ruled unconstitutional.

true. and such a ruling would open the door for all other forms of marriage using that ruling as a valid legal precedent. The arguments for polygamy would be EXACTLY the same as the arguments for gay marriage. equal rights, discrimination, 14th amendment.

An amendment would prevent that because the amendment could limit marriage to two human beings.

There is currently no federal law against polygamy that applies to the states.

Let me say this for the thousandth time. There is no argument the polygamists could make after a ruling in favor of same sex marriage that they can't make now.

Oh, and let's consider this. Maybe, from a strictly constitutional perspective, both same sex marriage and polygamy are rights,

as long as opposite sex monogamy is legal at the state level. THEN it has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where does it say that in the constitution? What legal document limits marriage to two people?

Yes, there is a long time precedent of two person marriage. There is also a long time precedent that marriage is one man and one woman. You care about one precedent but ignore the other one.

Slavery was legal for a long time.

The portion of the defense of marriage act that barred same sex married couple from federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

Actually, it would require a constitutional amendment such as the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" which was reject by the people. One of the reasons for its rejection was that it would lead to same sex "marriage".


JWK

yes, the people spoke. Thats the way it is supposed to work. We live in a country where the majority opinion controls, not the minority opinion.

And it's not just a simple majority. It requires three fourths of the states to approve a change as commanded by Article V of our Constitution. And this is what our tyrannical judges are circumventing ___ our Constitution's method for change to accommodate changing times.

These judges need to be taught a lesson and no punishment ought to be left off the table.


JWK

See what I mean?

lol

 

[johnwk]

Slavery was legal for a long time.

The portion of the defense of marriage act that barred same sex married couple from federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

Actually, it would require a constitutional amendment such as the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" which was reject by the people. One of the reasons for its rejection was that it would lead to same sex "marriage".


JWK

yes, the people spoke. Thats the way it is supposed to work. We live in a country where the majority opinion controls, not the minority opinion.

And it's not just a simple majority. It requires three fourths of the states to approve a change as commanded by Article V of our Constitution. And this is what our tyrannical judges are circumventing ___ our Constitution's method for change to accommodate changing times.

These judges need to be taught a lesson and no punishment ought to be left off the table.


JWK

See what I mean?

lol

Exactly what do you mean?


JWK

 

[NYcarbineer]

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

Actually, it would require a constitutional amendment such as the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" which was reject by the people. One of the reasons for its rejection was that it would lead to same sex "marriage".


JWK

That's just your opinion and you're an out on the fringe constitutional nut.

actually he is correct.

He's wrong if the court rules otherwise.

Courts cannot change the truth. They can only lie about the truth as they do with regard to the meaning of the 14th Amendment.


JWK

Consider the possibility that those who wrote the 14th amendment neglected to fully understand the legal implications of how they were wording the amendment. Maybe their failure to foresee its future legitimate usage, based on its wording, and thus their failure to specify its limitations,

was their fault.

 

[Redfish]

Slavery was legal for a long time.

The portion of the defense of marriage act that barred same sex married couple from federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

Actually, it would require a constitutional amendment such as the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" which was reject by the people. One of the reasons for its rejection was that it would lead to same sex "marriage".


JWK

That's just your opinion and you're an out on the fringe constitutional nut.

actually he is correct.

He's wrong if the court rules otherwise.

so you are willing to put the entire society in the hands of a few judges? what if all those judges were conservatives? would you still feel that way?

 

[NYcarbineer]

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

Actually, it would require a constitutional amendment such as the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" which was reject by the people. One of the reasons for its rejection was that it would lead to same sex "marriage".


JWK

yes, the people spoke. Thats the way it is supposed to work. We live in a country where the majority opinion controls, not the minority opinion.

And it's not just a simple majority. It requires three fourths of the states to approve a change as commanded by Article V of our Constitution. And this is what our tyrannical judges are circumventing ___ our Constitution's method for change to accommodate changing times.

These judges need to be taught a lesson and no punishment ought to be left off the table.


JWK

See what I mean?

lol

Exactly what do you mean?


JWK

I mean that just because you have cockeyed interpretations of the Consitution, we are not living in your fantasy land.

 

[Redfish]

Where does it say that in the constitution? What legal document limits marriage to two people?

Yes, there is a long time precedent of two person marriage. There is also a long time precedent that marriage is one man and one woman. You care about one precedent but ignore the other one.

Slavery was legal for a long time.

The portion of the defense of marriage act that barred same sex married couple from federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

You don't have to if state laws banning gay marriage are ruled unconstitutional.

true. and such a ruling would open the door for all other forms of marriage using that ruling as a valid legal precedent. The arguments for polygamy would be EXACTLY the same as the arguments for gay marriage. equal rights, discrimination, 14th amendment.

An amendment would prevent that because the amendment could limit marriage to two human beings.

There is currently no federal law against polygamy that applies to the states.

Let me say this for the thousandth time. There is no argument the polygamists could make after a ruling in favor of same sex marriage that they can't make now.

Oh, and let's consider this. Maybe, from a strictly constitutional perspective, both same sex marriage and polygamy are rights,

as long as opposite sex monogamy is legal at the state level. THEN it has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

theri argument would be exactly as the argument now being used by the gay rights folks. The difference is that they would have a valid legal precedent to support their argument.

do you understand the legal concept of precedents?

 

[NYcarbineer]

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

Actually, it would require a constitutional amendment such as the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" which was reject by the people. One of the reasons for its rejection was that it would lead to same sex "marriage".


JWK

That's just your opinion and you're an out on the fringe constitutional nut.

actually he is correct.

He's wrong if the court rules otherwise.

so you are willing to put the entire society in the hands of a few judges? what if all those judges were conservatives? would you still feel that way?

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

 

[Redfish]

Actually, it would require a constitutional amendment such as the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" which was reject by the people. One of the reasons for its rejection was that it would lead to same sex "marriage".


JWK

That's just your opinion and you're an out on the fringe constitutional nut.

actually he is correct.

He's wrong if the court rules otherwise.

Courts cannot change the truth. They can only lie about the truth as they do with regard to the meaning of the 14th Amendment.


JWK

Consider the possibility that those who wrote the 14th amendment neglected to fully understand the legal implications of how they were wording the amendment. Maybe their failure to foresee its future legitimate usage, based on its wording, and thus their failure to specify its limitations,

was their fault.

you just made the case for a constitutional amendment.

 

[johnwk]

Actually, it would require a constitutional amendment such as the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" which was reject by the people. One of the reasons for its rejection was that it would lead to same sex "marriage".


JWK

yes, the people spoke. Thats the way it is supposed to work. We live in a country where the majority opinion controls, not the minority opinion.

And it's not just a simple majority. It requires three fourths of the states to approve a change as commanded by Article V of our Constitution. And this is what our tyrannical judges are circumventing ___ our Constitution's method for change to accommodate changing times.

These judges need to be taught a lesson and no punishment ought to be left off the table.


JWK

See what I mean?

lol

Exactly what do you mean?


JWK

I mean that just because you have cockeyed interpretations of the Consitution, we are not living in your fantasy land.

What "cockeyed interpretations" are you referring to. Please quote my words.


JWK

 

[NYcarbineer]

Slavery was legal for a long time.

The portion of the defense of marriage act that barred same sex married couple from federal recognition was ruled unconstitutional.

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

You don't have to if state laws banning gay marriage are ruled unconstitutional.

true. and such a ruling would open the door for all other forms of marriage using that ruling as a valid legal precedent. The arguments for polygamy would be EXACTLY the same as the arguments for gay marriage. equal rights, discrimination, 14th amendment.

An amendment would prevent that because the amendment could limit marriage to two human beings.

There is currently no federal law against polygamy that applies to the states.

Let me say this for the thousandth time. There is no argument the polygamists could make after a ruling in favor of same sex marriage that they can't make now.

Oh, and let's consider this. Maybe, from a strictly constitutional perspective, both same sex marriage and polygamy are rights,

as long as opposite sex monogamy is legal at the state level. THEN it has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

theri argument would be exactly as the argument now being used by the gay rights folks. The difference is that they would have a valid legal precedent to support their argument.

do you understand the legal concept of precedents?

Yes I do. You're the one who doesn't. Legal monogamous marriage is not a precedent requiring legal plural marriage.

 

[Redfish]

Actually, it would require a constitutional amendment such as the proposed "Equal Rights Amendment" which was reject by the people. One of the reasons for its rejection was that it would lead to same sex "marriage".


JWK

That's just your opinion and you're an out on the fringe constitutional nut.

actually he is correct.

He's wrong if the court rules otherwise.

so you are willing to put the entire society in the hands of a few judges? what if all those judges were conservatives? would you still feel that way?

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's just your opinion and you're an out on the fringe constitutional nut.

actually he is correct.

He's wrong if the court rules otherwise.

Courts cannot change the truth. They can only lie about the truth as they do with regard to the meaning of the 14th Amendment.


JWK

Consider the possibility that those who wrote the 14th amendment neglected to fully understand the legal implications of how they were wording the amendment. Maybe their failure to foresee its future legitimate usage, based on its wording, and thus their failure to specify its limitations,

was their fault.

you just made the case for a constitutional amendment.

Yes, a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage that would offset any implied rights in the 14th.

That's what many conservatives want, btw.

 

[Redfish]

slavery was deemed illegal by federal law. If you want gay marriage legal nationally, pass a federal law.

You don't have to if state laws banning gay marriage are ruled unconstitutional.

true. and such a ruling would open the door for all other forms of marriage using that ruling as a valid legal precedent. The arguments for polygamy would be EXACTLY the same as the arguments for gay marriage. equal rights, discrimination, 14th amendment.

An amendment would prevent that because the amendment could limit marriage to two human beings.

There is currently no federal law against polygamy that applies to the states.

Let me say this for the thousandth time. There is no argument the polygamists could make after a ruling in favor of same sex marriage that they can't make now.

Oh, and let's consider this. Maybe, from a strictly constitutional perspective, both same sex marriage and polygamy are rights,

as long as opposite sex monogamy is legal at the state level. THEN it has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

theri argument would be exactly as the argument now being used by the gay rights folks. The difference is that they would have a valid legal precedent to support their argument.

do you understand the legal concept of precedents?

Yes I do. You're the one who doesn't. Legal monogamous marriage is not a precedent requiring legal plural marriage.

no, but legal same sex marriage would be. The only way to prevent it would be to legalize gay marriage and limit it to two persons. Do you think you could get that past the ACLU?

 

[Stephanie]

snip:
Media Matters Goes All Out To End Bill O'Reilly's Career
"It's all hands on deck," MMFA head Brock told the On Media blog on Thursday. "This is a moving target. We're not done."
2.27.2015
News
Jeff Dunetz
545
Politico's Dylan Byers

all of it here:
Media Matters Goes All Out To End Bill O Reilly s Career Truth Revolt

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's just your opinion and you're an out on the fringe constitutional nut.

actually he is correct.

He's wrong if the court rules otherwise.

so you are willing to put the entire society in the hands of a few judges? what if all those judges were conservatives? would you still feel that way?

What if there were no judges to keep states from banning firearms? Are you still willing to abolish the courts and their power to interpret the law?

apples and oranges.

judges are there to enforce the law, not to make it.

You dodged the question. You expressed a desire that judges not have the power to uphold the 2nd amendment.

 

[Redfish]

actually he is correct.

He's wrong if the court rules otherwise.

Courts cannot change the truth. They can only lie about the truth as they do with regard to the meaning of the 14th Amendment.


JWK

Consider the possibility that those who wrote the 14th amendment neglected to fully understand the legal implications of how they were wording the amendment. Maybe their failure to foresee its future legitimate usage, based on its wording, and thus their failure to specify its limitations,

was their fault.

you just made the case for a constitutional amendment.

Yes, a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage that would offset any implied rights in the 14th.

That's what many conservatives want, btw.

yes, some do, but most are like me, they just want the people to decide.