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

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

One, if you offer services to the public, then you offer them to everyone, period.

Two, states don't have rights.

Three, federal law trumps state law.

View attachment 32627

One - That simply isn't true, I can legally discriminate except based on certain criteria

Two - Simply untrue , of course states have rights. In this context a power IS a right. They have the right to certain powers.

Three - That is true, when the federal law complies with constitutional authority. If it doesn't then the federal law is invalid and does not supersede a state law. We see federal laws challenged on that basis all the time.

Federal Law IS the constitutional authority. you're conflating issues. state law can grant greater rights than the federal government. it can never grant fewer rights. I hope that helps.

Entirely and completely incorrect, as usual

The COTUS itself IS a form of federal law, but that does not mean than ALL federal laws rise to that lofty level. Or are you seriously suggesting that Congress can pass any law they like and the states just have to deal with it?

States can CERTAINLY afford fewer rights than the federal government. One quick and easy example is Voter ID laws, no federal law can over ride those laws, because states regulate voting, not the feds, so even if the feds DID pass a law sayng NO VOTER ID laws, that law would be patently unconstitutional.

So shove your sanctimonious " I hope that helped" comments right up your ass.

 

[rightwinger]

Lincoln was not surrendering to the South's demands for slavery, because he supported it in the Old South because it was part of the Constitution.

He was demanding the South respect constitutional, electoral process.

The Old South did not so Lincoln executed the Old South.

Ignore him

He is just trying to deflect the thread

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

And that is why, average bear, you are not an expert on these matters.

Don't marry someone of your own sex would be my advice.

Jake, I was eminently correct on all three points, AND I also am pro gay marriage.I don't think it's any of the government's business who marries who

no. you were not correct, eminently or otherwise

Uh yes,I was, please do the world a favor and stop telling people you're a lawyer. People except actual legal advice when they think they are speaking to a lawyer.

 

[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.

Except that it was in the state statutes. This did not even become an issue until you right-wing bigots found out that "the faggoes" were daring to get married, and claim the same rights, and privileges as respectable, normal people. Then you ran to your legislations and changed the definition by adding a restriction. The right was always expressed. It was you fuckers that tried to remove that protection with the law. That was when you overstepped the Federal Constitution.

It didnt have to state it, because it was never considered. The intent was always for it to be between a man and a woman.

You are confusing religious marriage with partnerships under contract via marriage license as regulated by government.

Show some proof of a marriage license being offered to same sex couples in the US (besides cases of fraud) prior to the current few decades.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Lincoln was not surrendering to the South's demands for slavery, because he supported it in the Old South because it was part of the Constitution.

He was demanding the South respect constitutional, electoral process.

The Old South did not so Lincoln executed the Old South.

Of course, but he DID say he would give up the fight for slavery if it would result in the reunification of the nation. Yes, or no?

 

[RKMBrown]

And that is why, average bear, you are not an expert on these matters.

Don't marry someone of your own sex would be my advice.

Jake, I was eminently correct on all three points, AND I also am pro gay marriage.I don't think it's any of the government's business who marries who

The issue, sir, is what does the phrase "state rights" mean. You define it as something that does not exist, others define it as something that does exist.

What is generally meant by the term states rights... is individual rights that are regulated by the states, not the federal government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, if you offer services to the public, then you offer them to everyone, period.

Two, states don't have rights.

Three, federal law trumps state law.

View attachment 32627

One - That simply isn't true, I can legally discriminate except based on certain criteria

Two - Simply untrue , of course states have rights. In this context a power IS a right. They have the right to certain powers.

Three - That is true, when the federal law complies with constitutional authority. If it doesn't then the federal law is invalid and does not supersede a state law. We see federal laws challenged on that basis all the time.

Federal Law IS the constitutional authority. you're conflating issues. state law can grant greater rights than the federal government. it can never grant fewer rights. I hope that helps.

Entirely and completely incorrect, as usual

The COTUS itself IS a form of federal law, but that does not mean than ALL federal laws rise to that lofty level. Or are you seriously suggesting that Congress can pass any law they like and the states just have to deal with it?

States can CERTAINLY afford fewer rights than the federal government. One quick and easy example is Voter ID laws, no federal law can over ride those laws, because states regulate voting, not the feds, so even if the feds DID pass a law sayng NO VOTER ID laws, that law would be patently unconstitutional.

So shove your sanctimonious " I hope that helped" comments right up your ass.

It is certainly an opinion.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Except that it was in the state statutes. This did not even become an issue until you right-wing bigots found out that "the faggoes" were daring to get married, and claim the same rights, and privileges as respectable, normal people. Then you ran to your legislations and changed the definition by adding a restriction. The right was always expressed. It was you fuckers that tried to remove that protection with the law. That was when you overstepped the Federal Constitution.

It didnt have to state it, because it was never considered. The intent was always for it to be between a man and a woman.

You are confusing religious marriage with partnerships under contract via marriage license as regulated by government.

Show some proof of a marriage license being offered to same sex couples in the US (besides cases of fraud) prior to the current few decades.

I don't think they could, pretty sure there was a male and female requirement on the marriage license form from the start in all states. Thus the confusion over which partner would put their name in the husband field and which the wife field. I don't think anyone really cared until we started handing out marriage protections.

If they wanted to get married and have it legal from a financial perspective, they would just set up a trust, or other type of legal arrangement. As far as getting married, yes plenty of American gays have been married in the past. Getting the license in a State has been the sticky part.

 

[jillian]

fist. take a deep breath. frankly, i'm unsure as to why you give a flying that two adult people who love each other can get married. i'm not sure why it makes you turn into a venom spewing extremist. I've not always found you to be this angry.

what process? the court has ALWAYS put the kibosh on unconstitutional actions by bigots. well, when it gets things right.

and, frankly, my gay friends have as much right to have their relationships recognized by the state as you do.

Again, if it is via the state legislature changing the marriage contract, I have no issue with it. I would probably vote for it.

My issue is with courts making up rights, because the same courts can make shit up to take them away. My other issue is with PA laws that force people to either compromise their religious beliefs, or abandon their preferred way of making a living. PA laws were meant to cover essentials, like lodging, transportation, and basic necessity purchasing, they were not meant to protect the feelings of a couple that has to call another baker/photographer for their wedding.

And what really gets my goat is the same people who are OK with making crap up in the constitution are A-OK with ignoring another part of it when it suits them.

The fact you have to accuse of me of some non existent bigotry is sad.

federal law trumps state law. and, if I've mischaracterized you, i'm sorry. I can only go by what I see. and, to be fair, most states' rights extremists are only states rights extremists because they're still pissed off about brown v board of ed, outlawing segregation and theocracy.... none of which is permissible anywhere but in the extremes of the right.

Federal law trumps state law, but federal laws should only concern themselves with what the constitution gives them. We have sadly moved far away from that, with the feds getting into crap that they have no right interfering with. States rights may be a catch all for everything you detest about the right, but that does not make all federalists the same. For example NY State is in violation of the 2nd amendment with a lot of their gun control laws (i.e may issue instead of shall issue CCW) and here the federal courts SHOULD step in and fix it.

do you think the founders were kidding when they said "equal protection under the law"?

so you're wrong.

p.s. until scalia and the wingers, justices laughed at the idea of the 2nd amendment imparting a private right of gun ownership. I suppose they were wrong for more than 200 years, huh?

Um, equal protection was added via amendment in the 1860's, the founders were long dead at that point, makes it hard for them to say anything about it.

And for centuries courts didn't have to rule on private ownership of a gun being a right because it was accepted by all as the status quo. Every house in the countryside had a rifle and a shotgun at least, usually displayed somewhere easy to get to.

but that isn't what the 2nd amendment was for. and you're not planning on feeding your family with a rifle and shotgun.

they also didn't have concealed weapons, did they?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Show some proof of a marriage license being offered to same sex couples in the US (besides cases of fraud) prior to the current few decades.

Prior to the last few decades you could be arrested and thrown in jail for being a same-sex couple (i.e. in a homosexual relationship).



>>>>

 

[jillian]

One, if you offer services to the public, then you offer them to everyone, period.

Two, states don't have rights.

Three, federal law trumps state law.

View attachment 32627

One - That simply isn't true, I can legally discriminate except based on certain criteria

Two - Simply untrue , of course states have rights. In this context a power IS a right. They have the right to certain powers.

Three - That is true, when the federal law complies with constitutional authority. If it doesn't then the federal law is invalid and does not supersede a state law. We see federal laws challenged on that basis all the time.

Federal Law IS the constitutional authority. you're conflating issues. state law can grant greater rights than the federal government. it can never grant fewer rights. I hope that helps.

Entirely and completely incorrect, as usual

The COTUS itself IS a form of federal law, but that does not mean than ALL federal laws rise to that lofty level. Or are you seriously suggesting that Congress can pass any law they like and the states just have to deal with it?

States can CERTAINLY afford fewer rights than the federal government. One quick and easy example is Voter ID laws, no federal law can over ride those laws, because states regulate voting, not the feds, so even if the feds DID pass a law sayng NO VOTER ID laws, that law would be patently unconstitutional.

So shove your sanctimonious " I hope that helped" comments right up your ass.

actually, child, congress CAN pass any law it wants as can the state legislatures, as you've seen by the pathetic unconstitutional efforts to violate gay rights, voting rights and reproductive rights.

it is then up to the courts, ultimately the high court, to decide if the law stands or falls.

again, I hope that helps since you seem not to have a basic understanding of how constitutional review works.

 

[jillian]

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.

Except that it was in the state statutes. This did not even become an issue until you right-wing bigots found out that "the faggoes" were daring to get married, and claim the same rights, and privileges as respectable, normal people. Then you ran to your legislations and changed the definition by adding a restriction. The right was always expressed. It was you fuckers that tried to remove that protection with the law. That was when you overstepped the Federal Constitution.

It didnt have to state it, because it was never considered. The intent was always for it to be between a man and a woman.

You are confusing religious marriage with partnerships under contract via marriage license as regulated by government.

Show some proof of a marriage license being offered to same sex couples in the US (besides cases of fraud) prior to the current few decades.

that's pretty meaningless. slavery used to be legal. would you use that as a defense of slavery in this day and age. what is appropriate under the law changes. that is why we talk about the constitution being a living document. I know that offends the right, but it's the truth. what equal protection means can change.

 

[jillian]

the founders made sure that your religious judgments cannot be imposed on others.

The idea was to prevent the government from imposing a religion on PEOPLE, not other people practicing their religion and harming no one.

Having to go to another baker is not harm.

I would very much like to have people practice their religion and harm no one....but when they try to codify their religion into law, making law that discriminates against others....that IS harm.

The only harm codified by law is harming the religious people, not you.

Again, how, exactly, does allowing gay people to marry hurt you. You keep trouting out this rhetorical general claim. But, every time you are cahllenged to provide details, you just pretend the question wasn't asked...

I think he's saying... it's not himself that he's defending it's the rights of the bigots to choose whether gays can get married in their own state that he's defending.

I was at that stage myself a couple years back. The stage between being a bigot against gay marriage and thinking well it's ok for others to be bigots if that's how they want to live.

may I ask what changed your mind?

 

[Dana7360]

Just face, they beat you down. They couldn't pass it by the people in the states so they used black robes activism to step on you

what a country eh?

This is ignorant and ridiculous.

The people have no authority to deny citizens their civil rights. The courts are reaffirming that fact.

It's also not true.

My state had the chance to vote on marriage equality in 2012. The measure passed by a very good margin. I voted with the majority.

Homosexuals have legally been getting married in my state since 2012. No court made that happen. The people did with their vote.

So yes, it can get passed the people when the issue is presented on the ballot.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Except that it was in the state statutes. This did not even become an issue until you right-wing bigots found out that "the faggoes" were daring to get married, and claim the same rights, and privileges as respectable, normal people. Then you ran to your legislations and changed the definition by adding a restriction. The right was always expressed. It was you fuckers that tried to remove that protection with the law. That was when you overstepped the Federal Constitution.

It didnt have to state it, because it was never considered. The intent was always for it to be between a man and a woman.

You are confusing religious marriage with partnerships under contract via marriage license as regulated by government.

Show some proof of a marriage license being offered to same sex couples in the US (besides cases of fraud) prior to the current few decades.

I don't think they could, pretty sure there was a male and female requirement on the marriage license form from the start in all states. Thus the confusion over which partner would put their name in the husband field and which the wife field. I don't think anyone really cared until we started handing out marriage protections.

If they wanted to get married and have it legal from a financial perspective, they would just set up a trust, or other type of legal arrangement. As far as getting married, yes plenty of American gays have been married in the past. Getting the license in a State has been the sticky part.

So basically all those laws were passed to reinforce a previous precedent, the limiting of a marriage contract from the States to opposite sex couple.s

 

[martybegan]

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.

Except that it was in the state statutes. This did not even become an issue until you right-wing bigots found out that "the faggoes" were daring to get married, and claim the same rights, and privileges as respectable, normal people. Then you ran to your legislations and changed the definition by adding a restriction. The right was always expressed. It was you fuckers that tried to remove that protection with the law. That was when you overstepped the Federal Constitution.

It didnt have to state it, because it was never considered. The intent was always for it to be between a man and a woman.

You are confusing religious marriage with partnerships under contract via marriage license as regulated by government.

Show some proof of a marriage license being offered to same sex couples in the US (besides cases of fraud) prior to the current few decades.

that's pretty meaningless. slavery used to be legal. would you use that as a defense of slavery in this day and age. what is appropriate under the law changes. that is why we talk about the constitution being a living document. I know that offends the right, but it's the truth. what equal protection means can change.

its only living by being amended via the amendment process. What we are doing now is taking "interpretation" and turning it into a cheap hooker version of the amendment process. So the whims of the few become imposed on the many.

 

[Dana7360]

Your bigoted opinion of gays is irrelevant. The only reason they are unequal at this point is because of Section 2 of the Unconstitutional DOMA. That will fall soon enough.

Tell me, precisely, why you believe my civil marriage license, issued by my state, should be treated differently than yours?

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.

Civil rights and equal protection under the law isn't whipping some right out of thin air.

 

[RKMBrown]

The idea was to prevent the government from imposing a religion on PEOPLE, not other people practicing their religion and harming no one.

Having to go to another baker is not harm.

I would very much like to have people practice their religion and harm no one....but when they try to codify their religion into law, making law that discriminates against others....that IS harm.

The only harm codified by law is harming the religious people, not you.

Again, how, exactly, does allowing gay people to marry hurt you. You keep trouting out this rhetorical general claim. But, every time you are cahllenged to provide details, you just pretend the question wasn't asked...

I think he's saying... it's not himself that he's defending it's the rights of the bigots to choose whether gays can get married in their own state that he's defending.

I was at that stage myself a couple years back. The stage between being a bigot against gay marriage and thinking well it's ok for others to be bigots if that's how they want to live.

may I ask what changed your mind?

Hard to explain...

In a sentence: Personal introspection, observation, and understanding of the needs and desires of others as a reflection of my own personal needs and desires. In short, I put my feet in their shoes.

I think of myself as a champion of the weak and a defender of liberty justice and the American way of life. How can I do that and let people get away with bullying gays, I asked myself... That's when I chose to switch to libertarian politics. Seems really clear to me now... I don't have an excuse for my racial bigotry or homophobic bigotry when I was younger. Call it peer pressure and ingrained social behavior if you like.

 

[RKMBrown]

Except that it was in the state statutes. This did not even become an issue until you right-wing bigots found out that "the faggoes" were daring to get married, and claim the same rights, and privileges as respectable, normal people. Then you ran to your legislations and changed the definition by adding a restriction. The right was always expressed. It was you fuckers that tried to remove that protection with the law. That was when you overstepped the Federal Constitution.

It didnt have to state it, because it was never considered. The intent was always for it to be between a man and a woman.

You are confusing religious marriage with partnerships under contract via marriage license as regulated by government.

Show some proof of a marriage license being offered to same sex couples in the US (besides cases of fraud) prior to the current few decades.

I don't think they could, pretty sure there was a male and female requirement on the marriage license form from the start in all states. Thus the confusion over which partner would put their name in the husband field and which the wife field. I don't think anyone really cared until we started handing out marriage protections.

If they wanted to get married and have it legal from a financial perspective, they would just set up a trust, or other type of legal arrangement. As far as getting married, yes plenty of American gays have been married in the past. Getting the license in a State has been the sticky part.

So basically all those laws were passed to reinforce a previous precedent, the limiting of a marriage contract from the States to opposite sex couple.s

Yes. The same way jim crow laws were written to enforce previous precedent.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would very much like to have people practice their religion and harm no one....but when they try to codify their religion into law, making law that discriminates against others....that IS harm.

The only harm codified by law is harming the religious people, not you.

Again, how, exactly, does allowing gay people to marry hurt you. You keep trouting out this rhetorical general claim. But, every time you are cahllenged to provide details, you just pretend the question wasn't asked...

I think he's saying... it's not himself that he's defending it's the rights of the bigots to choose whether gays can get married in their own state that he's defending.

I was at that stage myself a couple years back. The stage between being a bigot against gay marriage and thinking well it's ok for others to be bigots if that's how they want to live.

may I ask what changed your mind?

Hard to explain...

In a sentence: Personal introspection, observation, and understanding of the needs and desires of others as a reflection of my own personal needs and desires. In short, I put my feet in their shoes.

I think of myself as a champion of the weak and a defender of liberty justice and the American way of life. How can I do that and let people get away with bullying gays, I asked myself... That's when I chose to switch to libertarian politics. Seems really clear to me now... I don't have an excuse for my racial bigotry or homophobic bigotry when I was younger. Call it peer pressure and ingrained social behavior if you like.

The great majority of Americans have had to make that migration, RKM, like you, like me. I am grateful that I have had the opportunities over the decades to realize my errors and have the opportunity to grow in grace and light on these matters.