Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[martybegan]

Did your state ratify it via legislative action, or judicial fiat?

And facts can't be bigoted.

Facts can't be, but you saying that marriage between gays and marriage between heterosexuals isn't equal IS bigoted. In half the states now it is equal. Can you explain why you believe that my civil marriage license should be treated differently than yours?

Again, if it was passed by your state legislature, it should be legally equal. If it was created via judicial fiat, it is tainted by the use of courts to create something out of thin air.

The two forms of marriage are not the same thing. It's not bigoted to point it out, its realistic.

It's not the same thing. But it is bigoted to allow one form but not another for consenting adults.

Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.

Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?" Or any other human right for that matter? Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?

Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.

 

[RKMBrown]

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

Where is the part of the equal protection clause that specifically states it's only to apply to race issues?

We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned?

It's not, but we all know the intent of it. Interpretation is of course needed, but the 14th is being used so far outside it's intent that it can basically be used to make anything unconstitutional if you get a sympathetic court.

What do you think the intent was in the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th. Did I miss something? They seemed like very very very broad statements, giving the states the right to take your life, liberty, and property with due process.. and the people will receive equal justice.. this means you can't discriminate against people because you don't like their sexual orientation, or skin color, or religion. Or maybe justice means something different to you?

 

[RKMBrown]

Facts can't be, but you saying that marriage between gays and marriage between heterosexuals isn't equal IS bigoted. In half the states now it is equal. Can you explain why you believe that my civil marriage license should be treated differently than yours?

Again, if it was passed by your state legislature, it should be legally equal. If it was created via judicial fiat, it is tainted by the use of courts to create something out of thin air.

The two forms of marriage are not the same thing. It's not bigoted to point it out, its realistic.

It's not the same thing. But it is bigoted to allow one form but not another for consenting adults.

Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.

Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?" Or any other human right for that matter? Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?

Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.

Marriage is fundamental part of life. Life, liberty, and property are protected by the Constitution. Try again.

 

[martybegan]

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

Where is the part of the equal protection clause that specifically states it's only to apply to race issues?

We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned?

It's not, but we all know the intent of it. Interpretation is of course needed, but the 14th is being used so far outside it's intent that it can basically be used to make anything unconstitutional if you get a sympathetic court.

What do you think the intent was in the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th. Did I miss something? They seemed like very very very broad statements, giving the states the right to take your life, liberty, and property with due process.. and the people will receive equal justice.. this means you can't discriminate against people because you don't like their sexual orientation, or skin color, or religion. Or maybe justice means something different to you?

It means all things being equal, you cannot change the intent of a law between one party and the other. Race does not make one person different from another when it comes to law, or even reality. A marriage between two people changes depending on the sex of the people involved, its just reality. If we want to make them equal as per certain laws, the constitution leaves that to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.

 

[martybegan]

Again, if it was passed by your state legislature, it should be legally equal. If it was created via judicial fiat, it is tainted by the use of courts to create something out of thin air.

The two forms of marriage are not the same thing. It's not bigoted to point it out, its realistic.

It's not the same thing. But it is bigoted to allow one form but not another for consenting adults.

Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.

Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?" Or any other human right for that matter? Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?

Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.

Marriage is fundamental part of life. Life, liberty, and property are protected by the Constitution. Try again.

So the liberty to sell to whoever you want is protected? the right to deny your property to certain people for their wedding is protected?
I recall you being against that in the past. Oh wait, its only freedoms YOU like that are protected, got it.

 

[Czernobog]

You're the bigot here, not me. You can't tolerate a differing view, like most of you assholes. There would be no state issue if you were right, it would be like a state legalizing slavery, it can't happen. There's nothing in the Constitution that defines what each state must define marriage as. Fail.

Wellll...except the states did, until the Federal government said you don't get to. You might remember from your high school history classes that we fought a little war over that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Where is the part of the equal protection clause that specifically states it's only to apply to race issues?

We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned?

It's not, but we all know the intent of it. Interpretation is of course needed, but the 14th is being used so far outside it's intent that it can basically be used to make anything unconstitutional if you get a sympathetic court.

What do you think the intent was in the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th. Did I miss something? They seemed like very very very broad statements, giving the states the right to take your life, liberty, and property with due process.. and the people will receive equal justice.. this means you can't discriminate against people because you don't like their sexual orientation, or skin color, or religion. Or maybe justice means something different to you?

It means all things being equal, you cannot change the intent of a law between one party and the other. Race does not make one person different from another when it comes to law, or even reality. A marriage between two people changes depending on the sex of the people involved, its just reality. If we want to make them equal as per certain laws, the constitution leaves that to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.

No, your bigotry is not "just reality," it's your personal viewpoint. The same type of viewpoint that was used to justify bigotry against blacks. The 10th amendment was modified by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses. You're not paying attn. You're justifying your bigotry.

 

[WorldWatcher]

With that said Public Accommodation laws should be repealed as applied to private business. Just because a law is "legal" doesn't mean it should exist.>>>>

The problem is, WW, unless you are talking about an appointment only business where one does not allow the public access, there is no such thing as a "private business". That's the point. If you have a truly private business - one in which you have no access to the public, and potential customers can only avail themselves of your services by referral and appointment, then public accommodation laws don't apply to you. The only time you become subject to the public accommodation laws is when you are open to the public. See how that "public" thing is kind of important to the concept?

By "private business" I mean one owned and operated by non-government entities. It refers to ownership not whether they are open to the public or not.


>>>>

 

[RKMBrown]

It's not the same thing. But it is bigoted to allow one form but not another for consenting adults.

Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.

Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?" Or any other human right for that matter? Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?

Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.

Marriage is fundamental part of life. Life, liberty, and property are protected by the Constitution. Try again.

So the liberty to sell to whoever you want is protected? the right to deny your property to certain people for their wedding is protected?
I recall you being against that in the past. Oh wait, its only freedoms YOU like that are protected, got it.

Yes, you can sell to whomever you want. Yes, you can deny your property to certain people for their wedding, that is also protected.

No, I'm not against discriminatory private sales. You are confusing PUBLIC accommodation for PRIVATE sales.

 

[RKMBrown]

You're the bigot here, not me. You can't tolerate a differing view, like most of you assholes. There would be no state issue if you were right, it would be like a state legalizing slavery, it can't happen. There's nothing in the Constitution that defines what each state must define marriage as. Fail.

Wellll...except the states did, until the Federal government said you don't get to. You might remember from your high school history classes that we fought a little war over that.

Well the war wasn't just about that... it was more about federal power, control, and acquisition of the south.

 

[Czernobog]

wonderful news for individual rights

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

Yet we consider slavery and the rape of slave women a perversion and immorality and they all made sure the right to own slaves and do with them as property was protected.

No. That's not why slavery and rape are illegal. The purpose of Law is to protect me from you. Morality doesn't enter into the equation. The morality of slavery, and rape is irrelevant. The issue at question is that, in both of those cases, you are infringing on the rights of other; in the case of slavery the right of individual liberty, in the case of rape the right of ownership of one's body, as well as the right of, again, individual liberty.

This is the problem with you moralists. You stopped passing laws to protect me from you, and began advocating the passage of laws to protect me from myself. Well, guess what? That's not your job. You don't have the authority to "decide" what's "best for me". I am not 4-years-old, and you are not my parent. Every time one of these morality laws gets passed, its enforcement requires that the individual liberties of the very people it is directed at are abridged.

 

[Czernobog]

You get that the Supreme Court's move today not only has the effect of striking down the gay marriage ban in each of these cases, but also made the bans in the other eleven states in their jurisdiction invalid, as well. It sounds a whole lot like the Supreme Court just recognized the federal circuit courts' decision that gay marriage is a right. This just increased the number of states that recognize marriage equality from a paltry 19 minority to an impressive 30 majority of the nation.

Wrong.

Supreme Court declines to review same-sex marriage cases allowing unions in 5 states - The Washington Post
“It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here,” Scalia wrote.

Instead, “the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition,” Scalia wrote, and such suits are a “second . . . shoe to be dropped later.”

Well, of course, Scalia said that. He is the most activist Right-Wing judge on the court. However, The Court, fortunately, does not rule on the views of one man. Regardless of that that one man thinks, the feeling of The Court was that this issue did not need revisiting.

 

[Czernobog]

It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

Where is the part of the equal protection clause that specifically states it's only to apply to race issues?

We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.

Translation:"I know I'm right! Quit trying to confuse me with the facts!!!"

 

[martybegan]

We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned?

It's not, but we all know the intent of it. Interpretation is of course needed, but the 14th is being used so far outside it's intent that it can basically be used to make anything unconstitutional if you get a sympathetic court.

What do you think the intent was in the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th. Did I miss something? They seemed like very very very broad statements, giving the states the right to take your life, liberty, and property with due process.. and the people will receive equal justice.. this means you can't discriminate against people because you don't like their sexual orientation, or skin color, or religion. Or maybe justice means something different to you?

It means all things being equal, you cannot change the intent of a law between one party and the other. Race does not make one person different from another when it comes to law, or even reality. A marriage between two people changes depending on the sex of the people involved, its just reality. If we want to make them equal as per certain laws, the constitution leaves that to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.

No, your bigotry is not "just reality," it's your personal viewpoint. The same type of viewpoint that was used to justify bigotry against blacks. The 10th amendment was modified by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses. You're not paying attn. You're justifying your bigotry.

Actually I'm justifying others bigotry. And I guess we are going to go the ThoughtCrime route now, because that's where all this is leading to.

The bigotry against blacks we got rid of was systemic governmental bigotry, which was illegal under the words AND intent of the 14th amendment.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

So you can't find where in the Amendment it specifically mentions race as it pertains to equal protection. Imagine that!

I love that you're still beating the "activist judge" meme. How many ruling have there been now? How many have gone the anti gay way? But still you want to try for the "activist judge" storyline.

Hmmmm...19 rulings one way...none the other. Riiiggghhhhttt...."activism".

Yes, activism. We have lost contact with the constitution in favor of placating a vocal minority and their backers.

I think, if anything we are closer to the original intent of the Constitution to provide equal protection of the laws

Strongly disagree. Removal of this issue from the state legislatures, where it has always been decided basically shits on the constitution.

Actually, it doesn't. In fact this is the constitutional purpose of the federal courts. When states enact laws that transcend their constitutional authority, it is the responsibility of the federal Courts to put the breaks on. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't automatically make it unconstitutional.

I don't like the Citizen's United ruling. However, the Court has determined it is constitutional. Since they are the ones that have spent their lives studying the law, and not me, I have to accept their judgement.

 

[martybegan]

It was ruled unconstitutional based on race, and an amendment was created specifically to lead to that (and ignored for around 1/2 a century).

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

Where is the part of the equal protection clause that specifically states it's only to apply to race issues?

We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.

Translation:"I know I'm right! Quit trying to confuse me with the facts!!!"

What facts are you referencing? The Reconstruction amendments were created to protect the freedmen from local laws. Its a fact. It was not intended to be a foot in the door for things like gay marriage.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, some people tried to stop the 14th because it would lead to interracial marriage.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned? It's not? You don't say...

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

Where is the part of the equal protection clause that specifically states it's only to apply to race issues?

We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.

And yet, if that was the only intent, race would have been mentioned specifically wouldn't it? Loving was not the only marriage case that cited the 14th...and that one wasn't about race.

You assume that same sex and opposite sex marriage are the equal, they are not, no matter how much you wish it to be.

They are in respect to the rights, and privileges afforded to married couples; or, ought to be, anyway. That's kind of the point.

 

[martybegan]

That was the intent of the amendment, which has been perverted to the point of making it a catch all for any progressive tripe you clowns come up with (and find a pliable judge for).

So you can't find where in the Amendment it specifically mentions race as it pertains to equal protection. Imagine that!

I love that you're still beating the "activist judge" meme. How many ruling have there been now? How many have gone the anti gay way? But still you want to try for the "activist judge" storyline.

Hmmmm...19 rulings one way...none the other. Riiiggghhhhttt...."activism".

Yes, activism. We have lost contact with the constitution in favor of placating a vocal minority and their backers.

I think, if anything we are closer to the original intent of the Constitution to provide equal protection of the laws

Strongly disagree. Removal of this issue from the state legislatures, where it has always been decided basically shits on the constitution.

Actually, it doesn't. In fact this is the constitutional purpose of the federal courts. When states enact laws that transcend their constitutional authority, it is the responsibility of the federal Courts to put the breaks on. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't automatically make it unconstitutional.

I don't like the Citizen's United ruling. However, the Court has determined it is constitutional. Since they are the ones that have spent their lives studying the law, and not me, I have to accept their judgement.

Why do you have to accept it?

The purpose of the courts has nothing to do with the current misuse of them to further political agendas that are by the constitution, the territory of the people via their state legislatures.

 

[RKMBrown]

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned?

It's not, but we all know the intent of it. Interpretation is of course needed, but the 14th is being used so far outside it's intent that it can basically be used to make anything unconstitutional if you get a sympathetic court.

What do you think the intent was in the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th. Did I miss something? They seemed like very very very broad statements, giving the states the right to take your life, liberty, and property with due process.. and the people will receive equal justice.. this means you can't discriminate against people because you don't like their sexual orientation, or skin color, or religion. Or maybe justice means something different to you?

It means all things being equal, you cannot change the intent of a law between one party and the other. Race does not make one person different from another when it comes to law, or even reality. A marriage between two people changes depending on the sex of the people involved, its just reality. If we want to make them equal as per certain laws, the constitution leaves that to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.

No, your bigotry is not "just reality," it's your personal viewpoint. The same type of viewpoint that was used to justify bigotry against blacks. The 10th amendment was modified by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses. You're not paying attn. You're justifying your bigotry.

Actually I'm justifying others bigotry. And I guess we are going to go the ThoughtCrime route now, because that's where all this is leading to.

The bigotry against blacks we got rid of was systemic governmental bigotry, which was illegal under the words AND intent of the 14th amendment.

Thought crime?

The words and intent of the 14th amendment applied to everyone not just blacks.

 

[martybegan]

Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.

Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?" Or any other human right for that matter? Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?

Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.

Marriage is fundamental part of life. Life, liberty, and property are protected by the Constitution. Try again.

So the liberty to sell to whoever you want is protected? the right to deny your property to certain people for their wedding is protected?
I recall you being against that in the past. Oh wait, its only freedoms YOU like that are protected, got it.

Yes, you can sell to whomever you want. Yes, you can deny your property to certain people for their wedding, that is also protected.

No, I'm not against discriminatory private sales. You are confusing PUBLIC accommodation for PRIVATE sales.

No, the courts are confusing public accommodation with private transactions. You hide behind the "private sale" mantra, but the definition of a private sale that has been made basically precludes any real form of business to fall under it. Its a cop out, nothing more.